'="'«aiW'*w«'f^'"- 


THE  LOUVRE 


[ 


GIFT   OF 
A.    F.    "■  orris  on 


4",« 


M    tV 


Jfv^ 


'-^^ 


^<\ 


1 

9uffmRH^Hra^H«X 

1 

1 

THE    LOUVRE: 

FIFTY    PLATES    IN    COLOUR 


PLATE  IV.-LEONARDO  DA  VINCI 

(14S2-1519) 

FLORENTINE  SCHOOL 

No.  1601.-PORTRAIT  OF  MONA  LISA 
( La  Joconde ) 

The  portrait  of  Lisa  di  Anton  Maria  di  Noldo  Gherardini,  third  wife  of  Francesco  di  Bartolommeo  de 
Zenobi  del  Giocondo.  She  is  seated  in  a  chair  on  which  her  left  arm  rests,  her  right  hand  superposed  on 
the  left.  She  is  turned  three-quarters  to  her  right.  Her  hair,  divided  in  the  centre  and  seen  under  a  trans- 
parent veil,  falls  in  curls  on  her  shoulders;  her  dark  almond-shaped  eyes  loolt  out  at  the  spectator;  the 
mouth  is  smiling.  She  wears  a  dark-green  dress  with  golden-brown  sleeves;  a  dark  cloak  is  draped  over  her 
shoulders.    The  background  is  formed  by  a  mountainous  landscape  full  of  incident. 

Painted  in  tempera  on  panel,  and  restored  in  oil. 

2  ft.  6>i  in.  X  1  ft.  9  in.     ( 079  x  0-53.) 


THE    LOUVRE 

FIFTY   PLATES   IN   COLOUR 


By    PAUL    G.    KONODY 


AND 


MAURICE    W.    BROGKWELL 

JOINT-AUTHORS   OF   "  THE   NATIONAL  GALLERY  :   ONE   HUNDRED   PLATES   IN   COLOUR ' 

Editor:    T.     LEMAN    HARE 


■  ' ,',  "'• 


NEW    YORK 

DODGE     PUBLISHING     COMPANY 
214-220     EAST     23RD    STREET 


GIFT  OP 


'<"';  <■ 


PREFACE 

THOSE  who  wish  to  make  a  thorough,  comprehensive,  and 
systematic  study  of  the  pictures  of  the  great  national 
collection  contained  in  the  Louvre,  which  extend  from 
the  early  years  of  the  fourteenth  century  down  to  almost  the 
present  day,  will  be  well  advised  to  deal  with  the  artists  by 
the  countries,  schools,  and  periods  to  which  they  belong.  That  is 
the  scheme  which  we  have  followed  here. 

We  do  not  hesitate  to  refer  to  painters,  especially  those  of 
the  Italian  schools,  under  the  names  by  which  they  are  gene- 
rally known  to  modern  critics,  as  opposed  to  those  under  which 
they  are  officially  catalogued  by  the  Louvre  authorities.  Thus, 
Raphael,  Titian,  and  Giulio  Romano,  and  not  Santi,  Vecelli,  and 
Pippi,  are  the  names  which  we  shall  use  in  this  book.  Special 
attention  is  drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  official  attributions  of  a 
certain  number  of  the  pictures,  mainly  of  the  Italian  schools, 
and  notably  several  by  Raphael,  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  and  Titian, 
are  not  accepted  by  us. 

The  authors  of  any  critical  book  on  a  large  national  collection 
which  includes  several  hundred  Italian  paintings  of  varying 
importance  must  of  necessity  be  under  heavy  obligations  to 
Mr.  Berenson,  whose  scholarly,  scientific,  and  constructive  criticism, 
following  on  that  of  Morelli,  has  entirely  revolutionised  the  study 
of  Italian  art. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  many  instances  the  dates  used  in 
these  pages  do  not  coincide  with  those  given  in  the  official  Catalogues 


m9911^ 


vi  PREFACE 

and  repeated  in  a  large  number  of  text-books,  while  in  a  few  cases 
it  has  been  thought  desirable  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  student 
to  the  questionable  accuracy  of  some  of  the  titles  and  "  pedigrees." 

The  illustrations  which  have  been  selected  represent,  as  far 
as  possible,  the  whole  range  of  the  art  of  each  country  and  school 
comprised  within  the  limits  of  the  fifteenth  to  the  nineteenth 
centuries.  The  Plates  are  arranged  in  the  order  in  which  reference 
is  made  to  them  in  the  text,  but  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  place 
them  opposite  the  pages  on  which  the  critical  remarks  are  given. 

In  the  descriptions  of  the  pictures  the  terms  right  and  left 
are  used  in  reference  to  the  right  and  left  of  the  spectator,  unless 
the  text  obviously  implies  the  contrary.  Moreover,  in  the  titles 
of  pictures  containing  the  Madonna  and  several  Saints,  the  names 
of  the  Saints  are  given  in  the  order  they  occupy  in  the  composi- 
tion regarded  from  left  to  right.  The  titles  we  have  used  are 
descriptive  rather  than  mere  translations  of  those  contained  in  the 
official  Catalogue.  The  official  numbers  are  those  marked  in  large 
figures  and  placed  at  the  top  of  the  frames ;  the  numbers  in 
small  figures  affixed  to  the  bottom  left  corner  of  some  of  the 
frames  are  obsolete. 

The  surface  measures  of  the  pictures  are  for  convenience 
given  in  feet  and  inches  as  well  as  in  metres,  the  height  pre- 
ceding the  width.  The  technical  conditions  as  to  panel  or  canvas 
and  tempera  or  oil  are  also  noted. 

Most  of  the  Rooms  containing  pictures  are  open : — 

1.  On  Sundays  all  the  year  round,  10  a.m.  to  4  p.m. 

2.  On    Tuesdays,    Wednesdays,    Fridays,    and    Saturdays 

from  April  1  to  September  30,  9  a.m.  to  5  p.m. 

3.  On    Tuesdays,    "Wednesdays,    Fridays,    and    Saturdays 

from  October  1  to  March  31,  10  a.m.  to  4  p.m. 

4.  On  Thursdays  in  the  Summer  Months,  1  p.m.  to  5  p.m., 

and  in  the  "Winter  Months,  1  p.m.  to  4  p.m. 


PREFACE  vii 

5.  Rooms  IX. -XIII.,  which  contain  French  pictures  and 

Rooms  XIX.-XXXV.,  which  contain  Flemish  and 
Dutch  pictures  are  not  open  before  eleven  o'clock. 

6.  The  Louvre  is  closed  on  Mondays  all  the  year  round, 

and  on  January  1,  July  14,  and  Ascension  Day ;  it 
is  also  closed  on  the  Feast  of  the  Assumption 
(August  15),  All  Saints  Day  (November  1),  and 
Christmas  Day,  unless  these  last  three  days  faU  on 
a  Sunday. 


CONTENTS 


FAOK 

PREFACE     

V 

INTRODUCTION 

1 

EARLY  SIENESE  SCHOOL 

15 

DUCCIO'S   FOLLOWEES 

16. 

THE  FLORENTINE  SCHOOL     . 

19 

The  Giottesques 

20 

Fra  Angelico. 

23 

Paolo  Uccello 

26 

The  Goldsmith  Painters 

32 

Leonardo  da  Vinoi 

34 

MoNA  Lisa      .... 

.      36 

Botticelli       .... 

39 

Albertinelli  .... 

43 

Andrea  del  Sarto. 

45 

THE  LATER  SIENESE  SCHOOL 

49 

THE  UMBRIAN  SCHOOL  . 

53 

Peruqino         .... 

54 

Raphael          .... 

56 

THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL. 

61 

The  Bellini    .... 

.       62 

GlORGIONE          .... 

66 

Titian 

68 

Titian's  Followers 

.       72 

Paolo  Veronese 

.      74 

THE  PADUAN  SCHOOL     . 

.       79 

Andrea  Mantegna  . 

.      80 

THE  SCHOOL  OF  VERONA       . 

.      85 

THE  SCHOOL  OF  FERRARA     . 

89 

THE  SCHOOL  OF  MILAN . 

93 

Andrea  Solario      . 

95 

Bernardino  Luini  . 

96 

THE  SCHOOL  OF  LOMBARDY. 

b 

.       99 

THE       SCHOOL       OF 
BOLOGNA . 


FERRARA- 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  CREMONA 
THE  SCHOOL  OF  BRESCIA 
THE  SCHOOL  OF  MODENA 
THE  SCHOOL  OF  VICENZA 
THE  SCHOOL  OF  VERCELLI 
THE  SCHOOL  OF  PARMA 
THE  SCHOOL  OF  BOLOGNA 

THE  DECADENT  SCHOOLS 
The  "  Mannerists  " 
The  "Eclectics"     . 
The  "  Naturalists  " 

THE  EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 
Jan  van  Eyck 
The  School  op  Tournai 
Hans  Memlinc 
Memlino's  "  Virgin  and  Child,  with 

Donors" 
Gerard  David 
Hikronymus  Bosch  . 
The  Antwerp  School 
Barend  van  Orley 

THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 
PiKTER  Brueghel  . 
Jan  Brueghel 
The  France  Family 
Peter  Paul  Rubens 
Rubens  at  Antwerp 
The  M^dicis  Series 
MAdicis  Portraits  . 
IxATE  Works  by  Rubens 


101 

103 

105 

107 

109 

111 

113 

115 

117 
117 
118 
120 

123 
124 
124 
125 

127 
128 
130 
131 
133 

135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
142 
143 
145 


IX 


CONTENTS 


rAOK 


Late  Flemish  School — continued 

Dutch  School — continued 

Anthony  van  Dyck 

146 

Sir  Antonis  Mor    .... 

195 

Van  Dtck's  Second  Antwerp  Period 

147 

Spanish  Oppression 

196 

"Lb  Roi  1  LA  Chasse". 

148 

History  and  Portrait  Painters    . 

197 

Fbans  Sntders 

149 

CORNELIS  JaNSSEN     .... 

198 

Jacob  Jordaexs 

150 

Frans  Hals 

198 

Followers  op  Eubens 

151 

Dutch  Independence 

201 

Adriaen  Brouwer  . 

152 

Rembrandt      

201 

David  Teniers 

153 

The  Pupils  op  Rembrandt 

205 

Philippe  de  Champaiqne 

155 

Van  deb  Helst       .... 

205 

Van  der  Meulen    .         .         .         . 

156 

Genre  Painters      .... 

207 

Minor  Flemish  Painters 

156 

Adriaen  van  Ostade 

207 

Gerard  Dou 

208 

THE  GEEMAK  SCHOOL     . 

159 

Dou's  Pupils 

210 

"The  Master  op  the  Bartholomew 

Gerard  Tbrborch   .... 

211 

Altar " 

159 

Jan  Steen       

212 

Cologne  Painters  . 

160 

Pieter  de  Hooch    .... 

213 

AlBRECHT    DiJRER       . 

161 

Nicolas  Maes 

214 

Durer's  Followers 

162 

Gabriel  Metsu        .         .         . 

215 

Lucas  Cbanach 

162 

Landscape  Painters 

216 

Hans  Holbein 

163 

Aelbert  Cuyp          .... 

217 

The  Kbatzeb  Portrait 

164 

Jacob  van  Euisdael 

218 

Portrait  of  Anne  of  Cleves. 

166 

Hobbema.         .         . 

219 

The  Seventeenth  Century     . 

167 

Philips  Wouwerman 

219 

The  Eighteenth  Century 

167 

The  Italian  Influence  . 

220 

THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL    . 

171 

Architectural  Painters 

221 

Luis  DE  Dalmau      . 

171 

Marine  Painters    .... 

222 

Luis  Morales 

172 

Still-Life  Painters 

223 

El  Greco 

173 

The  Decline 

224 

The  School  op  Seville 

175 

THE  EAELY  FEENCH  SCHOOL 

227 

ZuebarIn 

.     176 

Eibera    . 

177 

The  MaItre  de  Moulins 

228 

The  de  SoMzi;E  "  Magdalen  " . 

230 

Velazquez 

179 

Jean  Fouquet         .         . 

231 

The  Infanta    . 

181 

Nicolas  Froment    .... 

232 

Mariana  of  Austria 

,     182 

Copies  and  School  Pictures  . 

.     183 

THE  SIXTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH 

The  "  Meeting  op  Thirteen  People 

'     184 

SCHOOL     .... 

*  235 

Murillo  ,...'. 

.     185 

Jean  Clouet's  Drawings 

235 

"  The  Immaculate  Conception  " 

.     186 

FRANgois  Clouet     . 

237 

"The  Birth  op  the  Virgin". 

.     187 

COENEILLE  DE   LyON 

238 

"The  Angels'  Kitchen" 

.     188 

The  School  op  Fontainebleau 

239 

The  School  of  Madrid  . 

.     189 

Jean  Cousin   .... 

240 

Goya 

.     191 

THE       SEVENTEENTH  -  CENTURA 

THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL 

.     193 

FRENCH  SCHOOL    . 

.     243 

Gerard  op  Haarlem 

,                , 

.     193 

The  Brothers  Le  Nain. 

.     244 

CONTENTS 


XI 


Seventeenth-Ckntuet  French  School — 
continued 


THE 


Nicolas  Poussin      . 

245 

Claude  Lorrain 

247 

Le  Sueur 

248 

Charles  Le  Brun  . 

249 

Pierre  Mignard 

250 

Le  Brun's  Followers 

251 

Battle  Painters     . 

253 

Jean  Jouvenet 

253 

The  Portrait  Painters 

254 

Landscape  Painters 

257 

Desportes 

258 

I         EIGHTEENTH  -  CENTUEY 

FRENCH  SCHOOL    .        .        .259 

Genre  Painters 

.     259 

Raoux  and  de  Trot 

.     260 

Watieau 

.     261 

The   Watteaus   in    the    La 

Caze 

Gallery 

.     263 

Waiteau's  Followers     . 

.     263 

The  Van  Loo  Family     . 

.     264 

FRAN901S  Boucher  . 

.     265 

SmfioN  Chardin 

.     267 

Fkagonard       .         ■  ,^   . 

.    268 

Greuze    .        .        .'       . 

.     269 

Portrait  Painters  . 

.     270 

TocQu£,  Vestier,  and  LitPiciE 

.     270 

Mme.  VigSe  Le  Brun     . 

.     272 

Joseph  Vernet" 

.     273 

Hubert  Robert 

.     273 

Jacques  Louis  David 

.     275 

The  "  Coronation  "  Picture 

.     276 

Baron  Gerard 

.     277 

Baron  Gros    . 

. 

278 

Eighteenth-Century  French   School — 
continued 
Pierre  Prud'hon     .         .         .         .     278 


THE         NINETEENTH  -  CENTURY 
FRENCH  SCHOOL 
Gericault  .     . 
Delacroix 

Delacroix's  Oriental  Pictures 
Ingres     .... 
Delaroche  and  Scheffer 
Decamps  .      '  . 
The  Orientalists    . 
Regnault 

Academic  Painters 
Michel  and  Huet  . 
The  Barbizon  School     . 

COROT 

T.  Rousseau 
C.  Troyon 
J.  Dupb6 
Diaz 

Daubigny 
Millet  . 
Daumier  . 

COUBBET . 

Meissonier 

RiCARD      . 

Manet     . 

THE  BRITISH  SCHOOL     . 

Constable  and  his  Imitators 

bonington 

Raeburn. 

Sir  Thomas  Lawrence    . 

Other  Portrait  Painters 


279 
279 
280 
282 
283 
285 
286 
287 
288 
288 
289 
290 
290 
292 
293 
293 
294 
295 
296 
298 
298 
299 
300 
301 

303 
303 
305 
306 
306 
307 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS 


NO. 

1601 
1383 
1344 

1322 

1297 

1566a 

1496 

1505 

1134 

1136 

1399 

1592 

1584 
1375 
1117 


ITALIAN   SCHOOLS 

LEONAKDO  DA  VINCI— 

Portrait  of  Mosa  Lisa  {La  Joconde) 

SIMONE  MARTINI— 

Christ  bearing  His  Cross. 

FRA  FILIPPO  LIPPI— 

Madonna    and    Child,    with    Angels,    and    Two 
Abbots     ...... 

DOMENICO  GHIRLANDAIO— 

Portrait   of   an    Old    Man    and    his    Grandson 
("  The  Bottle-nosed  Man  ")        ■ 

BOTTICELLI— 

GlOVANNA    DEGLI   AlBIZZI   AND    THE    ThREE    OraCES  . 

PERUGINO— 

St.  Sebastian  ..... 

RAPHAEL— 

La  Belle  Jardiniere         .... 

RAPHAEL— 

Portrait  of  Baldassare  Castiglione 

ANTONELLO  DA  MESSINA— 
Portrait  of  a  Condottiere 

GIORGIONE— 

Pastoral  Symphony  .  .  . 

PALMA  VECCHIO— 

The    Adoration    of    the    Shepherds,    with     a 
Female  Donor     ..... 

TITIAN— 

The  Man  with  a  Glove    .... 

TITIAN— 

The  Entombment    .  .  .  . 

ANDREA  MANTEGNA— 

Parnassus   .  .  .  .  . 

CORREGGIO— 

The  Mystic  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine  . 

xiii 


IV 
I 

II 

III 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 
XII 
XIII 
XIV 

XV 


PAGE 
Frontiipiec* 

16 

28 

32 
40 
56 
58 
60 
64 
66 

68 
70 
74 
80 
112 


XIV 


LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 


NO. 

1986 


1957 
2029 
1997 
2093 
2113 

1967 


2715 


1731 
1709 


2384 
2385 
2539 


FLEMISH   SCHOOL 

JAN  VAN  P:YCK— 

The    Virgin    and    Child,    and    the    Chancellor 
ROLIN        ...... 

HANS  MEMLINC— 

Portrait  op  an  Old  Lady. 

GERARD  DAVID— 

The  Marriage  at  Cana     .... 

QUENTIN  MATSYS— 

The  Banker  and  his  Wife 

JAN  MABUSE— 

Portrait  of  Jean  Carondelet 

RUBENS— 

Henry  iv.  leaves  for  the  Wars  . 

RUBENS— 

Portrait  of  Eel^ne  Fourment  and  two  of  her 
Children.  ..... 

VAN  DYCK— 

Portrait  of  Charles  i.  of  England 


GERMAN   SCHOOL 

HANS  HOLBEIN  THE  YOUNGER— 
Portrait  of  Erasmus 


SPANISH   SCHOOL 

VELAZQUEZ— 

Portrait  of  the  Infanta  Margarita 

MURILLO— 

The  Immaculate  Conception 


DUTCH   SCHOOL 

FRANS  HALS— 
The  Gipsr  Girl 

FRANS  HALS— 

Portrait  of  a  Lady  in  Black 

REMBRANDT— 

The  Pilgrims  at  Emmaus  . 


XVI 

XVII 

xvni 

XIX 
XX 
XXI 

XXII 
XXIII 


XXIV 


XXV 


XXVI 


xxvn 
xxvni 

XXIX 


*  This  picture  has  not  yet  received  an  ofScial  number. 


LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 


XV 


EEMBEANDT— 

Portrait  op  Hendrickje  Stofpels 

VAN  DER  HELST— 

The  Shootisg  Prize 

GERARD  DOU— 

The  Dropsical  Woman 

TERBORCH— 

The  Concert  .... 

JAN  STEEN— 

Bad  Company  .... 

PIETER  DE  HOOCH— 

Dutch  Interior,  with  a  Lady  Playing  Cards 

JAN  VER  MEER— 

The  Lace-Maker     .... 


FRENCH   SCHOOL 

NICOLAS  POUSSIN— 

The  Shepherds  in  Arcadia 

CLAUDP>- 

ViEw  OF  A  Seaport 

WATTEAU— 

The  Embarkation  for  the  Island  of  Cythera 

BOUCHER— 

Vulcan  Presenting  Arms  to   Venus 

CHARDIN— 

Grace  before  Meat 

FRAGONARD— 

The  Music  Lesson  .... 

GREUZE— 

The  Broken  Pitcher 

MME.  VIGEE  LE  BRUN— 

Portrait  of  the  Artist  and  her  Daughter 

DAVID— 

Portrait  of  Hue.  R&camier 

gUiricault- 

The  Raft  of  the  "  Medusa  " 

DELACROIX— 

Dante  and   Virgil  .... 

INGRES— 

The  Spring  .... 


XXX 

204 

XXXT 

206 

XXXII 

208 

XXXIII 

210 

XXXIV 

212 

XXXV 

214 

XXXVI 

216 

XXXVII  246 


XXXVIII 

248 

XXXIX 

262 

XT, 

266 

XT,T 

268 

XLII 

270 

XLIII 

272 

XLIV 

274 

XLV 

276 

XLVI 

280 

XLVII 

282 

XLVIII 

284 

XVI 


LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 


KO. 

2801 

2867 

2818 

644 

613a 


1809 


COEOT— 

The  Dell    . 

DUPRfi— 

The  Pond    . 

DAUBIGNY— 

Tbe  Weir  Gate  jlt  Optefoz 

MILLET— 

Women  Gleaning    . 

MANET— 
Olympia 


ENGLISH   SCHOOL 


CONSTABLE— 

Hampstead  Heath 


PLATE 


XTTX 

292 

L 

294 

LI 

296 

LII 

298 

LIII 

302 

LIV 


PAOE 


304 


',•    •»      ■■  o 


INTRODUCTION 

TO  form  a  just  appreciation  of  the  magnificent  collection  of 
paintings  which  the  Louvre  to-day  contains  would  require 
an  exhaustive  study  which  might  be  spread  over  a  term 
of  years  spent  in  the  famous  French  capital  itself  In  the  limited 
space  at  our  disposal  we  can  only  touch  lightly  upon  the  historical 
events,  the  sociological  causes,  the  grandeur  of  royalty,  and  the 
taste  of  the  people,  all  of  which  contributed  towards  bringing  about 
the  formation  of  the  great  Mus^e  National  du  Louvre  as  we  now 
know  it.  It  has  been  our  endeavour  to  throw  into  prominent 
relief  the  outstanding  features  in  the  history  of  the  Gallery  and 
to  sketch  them  in  chronological  order.  The  architectural  claims  of 
the  building,  its  priceless  collections  of  statuary  and  of  ohjets  d'art 
of  every  age  do  not  here  immediately  concern  us ;  it  is  to  the 
formation  of  the  superb  collection  of  paintings  that  we  primarily 
desire  to  call  our  readers'  attention. 

A  small  part  of  the  building  which  is  to-day  known  as  the 
Louvre  was  first  occupied  as  a  royal  residence  by  Philippe- Auguste 
(reigned  1180-1223),  who  converted  a  hunting-seat  of  the  early 
French  kings  on  this  site  into  a  feudal  fortress  with  a  strong 
donjon  or  keep,  the  exact  plan  of  which  may  still  be  traced  by 
the  white  line  marked  since  1868  on  the  pavement  in  the  south- 
west corner  of  the  old  courtyard.  Charles  v.  (reigned  1364^80), 
who  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  royal  collector  of  art  treasures 
in  France,  greatly  enlarged  the  building  of  the  Old  Louvre  as 
a  residential  palace ;  he  is  also  said  to  have  decorated  the  building 
with  statues   and  paintings  which  have  long    since   disappeared. 


2  THE  LOUVRE 

The  real  foundations  of  the  collection  of  la  maison  du  Boi  were 
laid  by  Fran9ois  i.  (reigned  1515-47),  who  during  his  Italian 
; 'c-'  .oamipaigns  acquired  a  respect  for  art  that  proved  to  be  an  honour 
^\^V|{'5b6::*hisv  taste  and  a  dowry  for  his  country.  The  sesthetic  move- 
ment had  developed  rapidly  by  1541,  when  he  laid  the  foundations 
of  the  present  palace^  and  had  already  begun  to  form  a  collection 
of  easel  pictures.  Fran9ois  i.  invited  to  his  court  the  master- 
painter  Leonardo  da  Vinci  (1452-1519),  who  in  1516  left  his 
native  land  for  France,  where  he  did  the  king  little  more  than  the 
compliment  of  dying  in  his  realm,  although  not,  as  an  un veracious 
tradition  recounts,  in  his  arms.  Andrea  del  Sarto  (1486-1531) 
was  also  employed  at  the  French  court,  at  which  he  arrived 
in  1518.  Giovanni  Battista  Rosso  (1494-1541),  a  painter  of  little 
genius  but  great  ability,  was  summoned  by  Fran9ois  i.  in  1530 
to  decorate  the  Chateau  at  Fontainebleau.  Benvenuto  Cellini 
(1500-71),  the  Florentine  goldsmith,  having  "determined  to  seek 
another  country  and  better  luck,"  was  yet  one  more  artist  who 
set  out  for  France,  where,  between  1540  and  1544,  he  adorned  the 
royal  tables  with  objects  precious  in  workmanship  and  material. 
Primaticcio  (1504-70),  who  is  known  to  have  cleaned  at  Fontaine- 
bleau in  1530  four  of  the  large  reputed  Raphaels  now  in  the  Louvre, 
remained  at  the  French  court  until  his  death.  The  strict  authen- 
ticity of  these  four  pictures — The  Holy  Family  of  Francis  I.  (No.  1498), 
the  St.  Margaret  (No.  1501),  the  large  St.  Michael  (No.  1504),  and  the 
Portrait  of  Joan  of  Arragon  (No.  1507) — does  not  here  concern  us. 
Fran9ois  i.  also  possessed  at  this  date,  among  other  notable  pictures, 
Raphael's   La  Belle   Jardiniere   (No.    1496,   Plate  VII.),    Leonardo 

^  "  Francois  i.  voulant  avoir  dans  Paris  un  palais  digne  de  sa  magnificence  et  d^aignant  le 
vieux  Louvre  et  I'liotel  des  Tournelles,  amas  irregulier  de  toumelks  (tourelles)  et  de  pavilions 
gothiques,  avait  fait  demolir,  des  1528,  la  grosse  tour  du  Louvre,  ce  donjon  de  Philippe- 
Auguste  duquel  relevaient  tous  les  fiefs  du  royaume.  C'etait  demolir  Thistoire  elle-meme; 
c'etait  la  monarchie  de  la  renaissance  abattant  la  vieille  royaute  feodale." — Martin,  HMt.  de 
France. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

da  Vinci's  Virgin  of  the  Rocks  (No.  1599),  and  the  same  artist's 
Mona  Lisa  or  La  Joconde  (No.  1601,  Plate  IV.),  while  the  art  of 
Sebastiano  del  Piombo,  Andrea  del  Sarto,  and  other  painters, 
Flemish  as  well  as  Italian,  was  well  represented  in  the  royal 
collection  during  his  reign. 

The  example  set  by  Fran9ois  i.  was  followed  by  his  successor, 
Henri  ii.  (reigned  1547-59),  for  whom  Niccol5  dell'  Abbate 
(1515-71),  an  artist  of  secondary  importance,  was  working  from 
1552  onwards.  Henri  ii.'s  queen,  Catherine  de  M^dicis,  was  also 
a  patron  of  art,  being  herself  a  collector  of  coins  and  medals. 
To  her  influence  was  due  the  decoration  of  the  Chateau  of  Fon- 
tainebleau  and  the  erection  of  the  Palace  of  the  Tuileries,^  which 
was  subsequently  connected  with  the  Louvre  by  means  of  the 
Long  Gallery,  now  Room  VL  Her  eldest  son,  Fran9ois  ii. 
(reigned  1559-60),  the  husband  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  first 
converted  the  new  buildings  of  the  Louvre  into  a  royal  residence. 
Henry  iv.  (reigned  1589-1610)  enlarged  the  Tuileries,  and  almost 
completed  the  Long  Gallery,  which  now  contains  such  a  large 
proportion  of  the  pictures.  Louis  xiii.  (reigned  1589-1610),  his 
eldest  son,  seems  to  have  taken  little  interest  in  the  royal  collec- 
tion ;  but  his  mother,  Marie  de  Medicis,  invited  Rubens  (1577-1640) 
to  Paris  to  decorate  the  Palace  of  the  Luxembourg  with  that 
series  of  imposing  canvases  representing  her  own  life  -  history 
which  are  to-day  seen  to  their  best  advantage  in  the  Salle  Rubens 
(Room  XVIII.)  of  the  Louvre. 

No  complete  record  has  been  found  of  the  pictures  which 
formed  the  royal  collection  previous  to  the  year  1642.  To  that 
date  belongs  a  meagre  Catalogue  of  the  objects  of  art  which 
then  remained  at  Fontainebleau,  but  it  is  supposed  that  when 
Louis  XIV.   (reigned    1643-1715)   succeeded    to  the   throne   he   in- 

1  An  inscription  on  a  tablet  placed  high  up  on  the  left  of  the  Pavilion  Sully  records 
that  Fran9ois  i.  began  the  Louvre  in  1541,  and  Catherine  de  Medicis  the  Tuileries  in  1564. 


4  THE  LOUVRE 

herited  about  one  hundred  pictures,  the  property  of  the  Crown. 
With  his  accession  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  art  in  France 
began. 

Meanwhile,  across  the  water,  a  superb  royal  collection  had 
been  formed.  Charles  i.  of  England  (reigned  1625-49)  had 
begun  his  career  as  a  patron  of  art  before  his  accession,  with 
the  acquisition  of  the  paintings  and  statues  collected  by  his 
deceased  brother,  Henry.  During  his  matrimonial  visit  to  Madrid 
in  1623  he  was  presented  by  Philip  iv.  with  Titian's  Venus  del 
Pardo,  now  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1587).  Soon  after  his  accession 
he  began  to  collect  systematically,  employing  trusty  agents  to 
buy  for  him  in  different  parts  of  Europe.  His  most  notable 
purchase  was  that  of  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Mantua,  for 
which  he  paid  £18,280  between  1629  and  1632.  He  is  said  to 
have  possessed  in  all  1760  pictures  by  the  date  of  his  execution. 
Most  of  them  were  disposed  of  at  auction  by  order  of  Cromwell 
between  1649  and  1652. 

One  of  the  most  persistent  bidders  at  the  sale  of  Charles  i.'s 
pictures  was  Eberhard  Jabach,  a  native  of  Cologne,  who  settled 
in  Paris  and  became  a  naturalised  Frenchman  in  1647.  He  was 
an  enthusiastic  buyer  of  pictures,  and  his  collection  soon  sur- 
passed that  of  the  French  king.  It  was  known  to  all  French 
connoisseurs,  and  was  visited  by  all  travellers  of  note.  In  time, 
however,  Jabach's  energies  as  a  buyer  exceeded  his  financial 
resources,  and  when  his  debts  amounted  to  278,718  livres  he 
offered  his  collection  to  Louis  xiv,,  who  was  most  anxious  to 
distinguish  his  reign  by  the  formation  of  a  gallery  of  pictures 
which  should  be  in  all  respects  worthy  of  it.  To  this  end  he 
purchased  Eberhard  Jabach's  collection,  paying  220,000  livres  for 
the  5542  drawings  and  101  pictures  which  it  contained.  The 
price  originally  asked  by  Jabach  was  463,425  livres.  Among  the 
masterpieces   thus  acquired    by  the    king  were  Titian's   Entomb- 


INTRODUCTION  5 

merd  (No.  1584,  Plate  XIII.),  which  Jabach  had  had  the  good 
fortune  to  purchase  from  the  Enghsh  royal  collection  for  the 
absurdly  small  sum  of  £128,  and  Giorgione's  Pastoral  Symphony 
(No.  1136,  Plate  X.),  which  had  also  been  among  the  treasures 
of  the  English  Crown. 

To  Cardinal  Richelieu  (1585-1642),  who  founded  the  French 
Academy  in  1635,  at  one  time  belonged  Andrea  Mantegna's  Par- 
nassus  (No.  1375,  Plate  XIV.),  the  same  painter's  Wisdom  victorious 
over  the  Vices  (No.  1376),  Lorenzo  Costa's  The  Court  of  Isabella 
d'Este  in  the  Garden  of  the  Muses  (No.  1261),  and  the  same  painter's 
Mythological  Scene  (No.  1262),  together  with  Perugino's  Comhot  of 
Love  and  Chastity  (No.  1567). 

Another  important  buyer  at  the  sale  of  Charles  i.'s  collection 
was  Cardinal  Mazarin  (1602-61),  who  acquired  several  valu- 
able pictures,  besides  statuary,  tapestries,  and  other  fabrics. 
Of  Mazarin's  pictures  the  Louvre  now  possesses  Raphael's  small 
St.  Michael  (No.  1502)  and  a  Holy  Family  (No.  1135),  which  is 
catalogued  under  the  name  of  Giorgione,  but  it  is  more  probably 
from  the  hand  of  Cariani. 

It  is  said  that  Louis  xiv.  preferred  the  pictures  of  his  own 
court-painter,  Charles  Le  Brun,  to  those  of  the  Venetian  master, 
Paolo  Veronese,  whose  large  canvas.  The  Supper  at  Emmaus 
(No.  1196),  was  nevertheless  acquired  during  his  reign.  Eight 
pictures  by  Annibale  Carracci,  all  of  which  are  not  now  publicly 
exhibited  in  the  Louvre  (Nos.  1218,  1220,  1222,  1226,  1231-34), 
Albani's  Diana  and  Actceon  (No.  1111),  nine  compositions  by 
Guido  Reni  (Nos.  1439-55  and  1457),  and  ten  paintings  by 
Domenichino  (Nos.  1609-10  and  1612-19),  also  enriched  the  royal 
collection  during  Louis  xiv.'s  reign.  Nor  were  the  great  French 
painters  neglected.  The  four  pictures  (Nos.  736-39)  of  The  Seasons, 
by  Nicolas  Poussin,  which  had  been  commissioned  in  1660  by  the  Due 
de  Richelieu  for  the  decoration  of  the  Chateau  de  Meudon,  together 


6  THE  LOUVRE 

with  four  of  the  largest  Claudes  now  in  the  Louvre  (Nos.  312, 
314,  316,  317),  were  obtained  for  the  royal  galleries  by  the  ever- 
watchful  Colbert  (1619-83),  who  had  been  appointed  Minister  of 
Finance  on  the  death  of  Mazarin  (1602-61).  Flemish  art,  as 
seen  in  the  stately  pictures  of  Van  Dyck,  was  represented  by 
seven  examples  (Nos.  1961-63,  1970,  1973-75).  On  the  other  hand, 
Louis  XIV.  is  said  to  have  failed  altogether  to  appreciate  the 
work  of  Teniers  and  to  have  exclaimed,  when  some  of  that  artist's 
pictures  were  brought  to  his  notice,  "  Otez-moi  ces  magots-la ! " 
Only  one  of  the  thirty-nine  pictures  by  Teniers  now  in  the 
Louvre,  the  Interior  of  a  Cottage  (No.  2162),  passed  into  the 
Gallery  at  that  date.  The  almost  entire  absence  of  Dutch 
pictures  is  also  to  be  noticed. 

An  event  of  extreme  importance  in  this  pompous  reign  was 
the  institution  of  the  French  Academy  of  Arts,  in  1648,  with 
Charles  Le  Brun  (1619-90)  as  Director,  the  despotic  power  which 
he  exercised  in  art  matters  bringing  about  his  further  appoint- 
ment as  Director  of  the  Gobelins  tapestry  works  in  1660. 

In  1681  the  Crown  pictures  and  other  royal  art  treasures 
were  brought  to  the  Louvre  from  Versailles  and  were  temporarily 
exhibited  there,  the  king  paying  a  state  visit  to  the  capital  on 
December  5  to  see  his  cabinet  de  tableaux.  We  read  that  the 
walls  of  eleven  rooms  were  covered  up  to  the  cornices.  The 
collection,  putting  on  one  side  all  doubts  as  to  strict  authen- 
ticity, included  six  paintings  by  Correggio,  ten  by  Leonardo  da 
Vinci,  eight  by  Giorgione,  twenty-three  by  Titian,  nineteen  by 
A.  Carracci,  twelve  by  Guido  Reno,  and  eighteen  by  Paolo  Veronese. 
These  treasures,  however,  did  not  remain  long  at  the  Louvre,  but 
were  "packed  up,  loaded  on  rough  carts,  and  taken  back  over 
the  paved  roads  to  Versailles,"  which  had  now  taken  precedence 
over  Fontainebleau  as  a  royal  residence ;  and  at  Versailles  the 
Court   mainly   resided  until   the  Revolution,  although   Louis  xiv. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

greatly  enlarged  the  Louvre  Palace  and  planted  the  Tuileries 
Gardens.  At  the  death  of  le  Roi  Soleil  the  Crown  pictures 
numbered   1500. 

The  energy  of  Louis  xrv.  was  followed  by  the  apathy  of  his 
degenerate  successor,  Louis  xv.  (reigned  1715-74),  who,  however, 
added  300  pictures  to  the  royal  collection.  The  Virgin  with 
the  Blice  Diadem  or  Virgin  with  the  Veil  (No.  1497),  which 
still  passes  under  the  name  of  Raphael,  was  among  the  pictures 
which  then  passed  out  of  the  collection  of  the  Prince  de  Carignan 
into  the  possession  of  the  Crown,  It  was  now  a  sorry  moment 
for  the  pictures  which,  "scattered  through  the  interminable  and 
then  ill-kept  country  palaces  of  the  French  Crown,  exposed  to 
every  injury  of  time,  ignorance,  and  weather,  regarded  at  best 
in  the  light  of  old  furniture  and  too  often  in  that  of  old  lumber, 
pleaded  in  vain  for  respect  and  care.  No  public  Catalogue  told 
of  their  existence ;  the  generation  that  had  talked  of  them  had 
passed  away ;  it  was  nobody's  business  to  ask  for  them,  and  few 
actually  knew  where  they  were.  Even  the  new-comers  passed 
into  the  same  void  which  had  swallowed  their  predecessors." 
Some  of  the  pictures  previously  recorded  now  disappeared  com- 
pletely, without  leaving  a  clue  to  their  fate.  Eventually,  in  1746, 
M.  de  la  Fonte  de  Saint -Yenne  in  a  pamphlet  directed  public 
opinion  to  the  fact  that  these  Crown  pictures  had  for  fifty  years 
been  hidden  and  neglected  in  '' une  obscure  prison  de  Versailles." 
As  a  result  of  this,  in  1750,  by  the  king's  permission,  110 
pictures  selected  from  the  different  schools  of  painting  were 
brought  from  Versailles  to  the  Palais  de  Luxembourg,  where  the 
large  canvases  by  Rubens  (now  in  the  Salle  Rubens  at  the 
Louvre)  were  regarded  as  forming  a  centre  d'etudes.  Here  for 
the  first  time,  and  for  two  days  only  in  the  week,  they  were 
shown  under  certain  restrictions  to  a  limited  public.  In  1785 
they  were  again  removed  to  Versailles. 


8  THE  LOUVRE 

Although  Louis  xiv/s  well-known  grudge  against  Holland 
probably  accounted  for  the  almost  entire  absence  of  Dutch  pictures 
from  the  Crown  possessions,  Louis  xvi.  had  the  good  taste  to 
acquire  works  by  Aelbert  Cuyp  (No.  2341,  Landscape) ;  Jan  van 
Goyen  (No.  2375,  Banlcs  of  a  Dutch  River,  and  No.  2377,  A  River 
in  Holland) ;  B.  van  der  Heist  (No.  2394,  The  Ojfficers  of  the  Arqiie- 
hvsiers  of  St.  Sehastian) ;  G.  Metsu  (No.  2461,  The  Alchemist) ; 
Adriaen  van  Ostade  (No.  2495,  The  Painter's  Family  \J],  and  No. 
2496,  The  Schoolmaster) ;  Isaac  van  Ostade  (No.  2510,  A  Frozen 
Canal  in  Holland) ;  Rembrandt  (No.  2539,  The  Pilgrims  at  Emmaus, 
No.  2540,  and  No.  2541,  The  Philosopher  in  Meditation,  No.  2555, 
Portrait  of  Rembrandt  aged) ;  Jacob  van  Ruisdael  (No.  2559,  Land- 
scape, and  No.  2560,  Sunny  Landscape) ;  Terborgh  (No.  2587,  The 
Military  Gallant) ;  and  Philips  Wouverman  (No.  2621,  The  Prize 
Ox,  and  No.  2625,  The  Stag  Hunt).  Five  of  the  less  important 
of  Murillo's  pictures  now  in  the  Louvre  (Nos.  1712-15  and 
No.  1717)  were  also  acquired  at  this  period,  and  the  series  of 
twenty -two  large  canvases  illustrating  Scenes  from  the  Life  of  St. 
Bruno  by  Eustache  Le  Sueur  were  also  purchased  by  Louis  xvi. 

From  1725  onwards  the  Salon  held  its  Exhibitions  in  the 
Salon  Carre  (Room  IV.),  but  after  1848  this  room  was  used  only 
for  Paintings  by  the  Old  Masters. 

In  1790  a  Commission  was  appointed  by  the  National  Assembly 
"to  register  and  watch  over  all  that  was  most  valuable,"  and  on 
May  26,  1791  a  decree  was  made  that  the  Louvre  should  be 
thenceforward  dedicated  to  the  conservation  of  objects  of  science 
and  of  art.  On  August  26  of  the  same  year  a  further  Commission 
was  appointed  by  the  National  Convention  to  inspect  and  gather 
together  the  treasures  of  art  scattered  through  les  maisons  royales. 
The  Convention  decided  that  the  "Museum  of  the  Republic" 
should  be  officially  opened  in  the  Long  Gallery  of  the  Louvre  on 
August   10,   1793,   and  from  November  8  of  the  same  year  the 


INTRODUCTION  9 

Museum  was  open  to  the  inspection  of  the  public  three  days  in 
every  ten.  This,  the  first  public  exhibition  of  art  treasures  in  the 
Louvre,  was  the  foundation  of  the  present  institution.  The 
Catalogue  of  this  date  contains  reference  to  only  537  pictures, 
the  greater  number  of  which  came  from  Paris  churches  and 
national  buildings.  The  inhabitants  of  Versailles  now  petitioned 
that  their  town  should  not  be  despoiled  of  its  pictures,  "  and  so  be 
deprived  of  its  last  attraction  in  the  eyes  of  the  world " ! 

The  Louvre  was  now  destined  to  become  for  a  few  years  the 
temple  of  the  spolia  opima  which  the  victorious  French  army 
brought  home.  "This  system  of  levying  pictures,  statues,  and 
other  objects  by  means  of  treaties,  so  called,  in  which  the 
conqueror  dictated  terms  to  those  incapable  of  refusing  them, 
was  a  dishonourable  novelty  in  the  annals  of  modern  warfare. 
Disdaining  the  usages  of  Christian  nations  and  overleaping  especi- 
ally the  traditions  of  French  courtesy  and  chivalry,  Buonaparte 
turned  back  to  the  ages  of  pagan  history  for  a  precedent  for  his 
measures  of  spoliation."  By  the  Treaty  of  Bologna  of  June  23, 
1796,  and  the  Treaty  of  Tolentino  of  February  19,  1797,  he  became 
possessed  of  twenty  pictures  from  Modena,  twenty  from  Parma, 
forty  from  Bologna,  ten  from  Ferrara,  while  Rome,  Piacenza, 
Cento,  Ravenna,  Rimini,  Pesaro,  Ancona,  Loreto,  and  Perugia 
also  had  to  yield  up  a  portion  of  their  treasures. 

The  first  exhibition  of  this  booty  was  held  in  the  Louvre  in 
January  1798.  Here,  during  the  next  few  years,  were  gathered 
together  many  of  the  world's  most  famous  pictures,  including 
Raphael's  8t.  Cecilia,  now  in  the  Bologna  Gallery ;  Correggio's 
St.  Jerome  and  his  Madonna  delta  Scodella,  now  in  the  Parma 
Gallery ;  Raphael's  Transfiguration,  now  in  the  Vatican,  and  his 
Madonna  delta  Sedia,  now  in  the  Pitti  Palace  at  Florence ; 
Domenichino's  Last  Communion  of  St.  Jerome,  now  in  the  Vatican ; 
Titian's  Martyrdom  of  St.  Peter  Martyr,  destroyed  by  fire  in  1867, 


10  THE  LOUVRE 

and  his  Assumption,  now  in  the  Venice  Gallery ;  Van  Eyck's 
Adoration  of  the  Lamb,  now  dismembered  and  distributed  between 
Ghent,  Berlin,  and  Brussels ;  Paris  Bordone's  Fisherman  of  St 
Mark,  now  in  the  Venice  Gallery ;  and  Paul  Potter's  Bull,  now  at 
The  Hague.  "Here  was  seen  the  unexampled  sight  of  twenty- 
five  Raphaels  ranked  together,  the  great  master  complete  in  every 
period  and  walk  of  his  art.  Here  twenty-three  Titians  glowed 
in  burning  row.  Here  Rubens  revelled  in  no  less  than  fifty-three 
pictures  and  in  almost  as  many  classes  of  subject.  Van  Dyck 
followed  his  illustrious  master  with  thirty-three  works,  while 
thirty-one  specimens  of  Rembrandt's  brush  shed  a  golden  atmo- 
sphere upon  the  walls.  The  later  Italians  especially  were 
magnificently  represented  —  thirty-six  pictures  by  Annibale 
Carracci,  sixteen  by  Domenichino ;  twenty-three  by  Guido ;  in- 
cluding the  largest  altarpieces  by  each ;  and  twenty-six  by 
Guercino,  were  perhaps  the  most  popular  part  of  the  wondrous 
show." 

However,  in  September  1815,  the  pictures  and  other  valuable 
works  of  art  which  France  had  plundered  from  her  foes  had  to 
be  given  back,  and  the  spoliation  of  the  Louvre  began.  In  all, 
5233  objects,  of  which  2065  were  pictures,  were  taken  away 
from  the  Royal  Museum  by  the  Allied  Powers. 

An  event  rare  in  the  history  of  public  galleries  took  place  in 
1813,  when  the  Louvre  received  Carpaccio's  Preaching  of  St. 
Stephen  (No.  1211),  Boltraffio's  Madonna  of  the  Gasio  Family  (No. 
1169),  Marco  d'Oggiono's  Holy  Family  (No.  1382),  Moretto's 
St.  Bernardino  of  Siena  and  St.  Louis  of  Toulouse  (No.  1175),  and 
the  same  artist's  St.  Bonaventura  and  St.  AniJiony  of  Padua 
(No.  1176),  in  exchange  for  five  pictures  by  Rubens,  Rembrandt, 
Van  Dyck,  and  Jordaens. 

It  is  curious  to  notice  that  at  this  period  very  little  import- 
ance   was    attached    to    Italian    primitives,   which    were,    indeed, 


INTRODUCTION  11 

deemed  "barbarous."  Many  beautiful  works  of  the  very  early 
Italian  schools  were  actually  not  considered  worth  the  trouble 
and  expense  of  transport,  and  were  therefore  left  for  the  lasting 
glory  of  the  Louvre.  Among  them  may  be  mentioned  Fra 
Angelico's  Coronation  of  the  Virgin  (No.  1290) ;  the  Madonna  and 
Child  and  Two  Saints,  (No.  1114),  now  officially  ascribed  to 
Albertinelli ;  Bronzino's  Christ  and  the  Magdalene  (No.  1183) ;  the 
Madonna  and  Angels  (No.  1260),  which  passes  under  the  name  of 
Cimabue ;  Gentile  da  Fabriano's  Presentation  in  the  Temple  (No. 
1278) ;  the  Coi-onation  of  the  Virgin  (No.  1303),  still  officially  ascribed 
to  Raffaellino  del  Garbo  ;  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  receiving  the  Stigmata 
(No.  1312),  which  still  passes  under  the  name  of  Giotto ;  Benozzo 
Gozzoli's  Triumph  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  (No.  1319) ;  Fra  Filippo 
Lippi's  Madonna  and  Child  letween  Two  Saints  (No.  1344) ;  Pesellino's 
two  small  predella  pictures  (No.  1414)  ;  Piero  di  Cosimo's  Coronation 
of  the  Virgin  (No.  1416);  The  Madonna  in  Glory  between  St.  Bernard 
and  St.  Mary  Magdalene  (No.  1482),  which  is  still  assigned  to  Cosimo 
Rosselli ;  Lorenzo  di  Credi's  Madonna  and  Child  with  St.  Julian 
and  St.  Nicholas  (No.  1263) ;  Cima's  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1259) ; 
Vasari's  Annunciation  (No.  1575),  which  is  now  in  one  of  the 
storerooms  of  the  Louvre ;  the  Ferrarese  Madonna  and  Child 
with  St.  Quentin  and  St.  Benedict  (No.  1167),  which  is  still  assigned 
to  Bianchi ;  Andrea  Mantegna's  Calvary  (No.  1373)  and  Virgin  of 
Victory  (No.  1374) ;  Domenico  Ghirlandaio's  Visitation  (No.  1321) ; 
and  Perugino's  St.  Paul  (No.  1566).  Further  proof  of  the  slight 
regard  in  which  certain  pictures  that  we  cherish  to-day  were 
then  held  is  afforded  by  the  readiness  with  which  the  authorities 
sent  two  panels  of  Mantegna's  altarpiece,  the  centre-part  of 
which  is  now  in  the  Church  of  San  Zeno  at  Verona,  to  the 
Museum  at  Tours,  and  parted  with  Perugino's  altarpieces  to  the 
public  galleries  of  Lyons  and  Marseilles. 

Under      Louis      xviii.      (died      1824)      111      pictures      were 


12  THE  LOUVRE 

purchased  for  the  national  collection  at  a  cost  of  £26,730,  but 
during  the  reign  of  Charles  x.  (1824-30)  only  30  were  acquired, 
£2511  being  expended  on  them.  An  outlay  of  £2965  by  Louis 
Philippe  (reigned  1830-48)  enriched  the  Louvre  with  33  more 
pictures,  but  that  king  concentrated  his  efforts  on  the  restoration 
and  decoration  of  the  Chateau  of  Versailles,  on  which  he  spent 
£440,000. 

In  the  early  years  of  the  Second  Republic  a  large  number  of 
improvements  were  eflFected  in  the  Louvre,  and  in  1848  £8000 
was  spent  on  restoring  several  of  the  rooms  now  hung  with 
pictures,  which  were  first  systematically  arranged  three  years 
later.  Although  the  Museum  had  at  that  period  an  annual 
grant  of  £2000  for  the  purchase  of  pictures,  special  grants  in 
aid  were  made  from  time  to  time,  notably  on  the  occasion 
of  the  sale  of  Marshal  Soult,  pictures  from  whose  collection 
were  acquired  in  1852  for  £24,612.  In  this  way  Murillo's 
Immaculate  Conception  (No.  1709,  Plate  XXVI.)  passed  to  the 
Louvre  from  the  "  Plunder  -  master  -  General "  of  the  Spanish 
campaign. 

During  the  Second  Empire  the  Mus^e  du  Louvre  acquired 
about  200  Italian  primitives  from  the  Campana  collection,  while 
seven  years  later  it  was  further  enriched  by  the  important 
bequest  by  Dr.  La  Caze  of  275  paintings  of  different 
schools.  Since  1870,  when  the  Palace  of  the  Tuileries  was 
destroyed,  the  permanent  collection  has  been  increased  by  the 
purchase  in  1883  for  £8000  of  the  Morris  Moore  "Raphael" 
(No.  1509),  which  has  since  come  to  be  universally  regarded  as  a 
work  by  Perugino ;  while  about  300  other  paintings  of 
varying  importance  have  also  been  acquired  from  time  to  time 
with  Government  funds.  In  recent  years  the  national  collection 
has  benefited  largely  by  the  generosity  of  private  donors,  among 
whom  we  may  mention  MM.  Duchatel,  Gatteaux,  His  de  la  Salle, 


INTRODUCTION  13 

Lallemant,  Maciet,  Rodolphe  Kann,  Sedelmeyer,  Grandidier, 
Vandeul,    and  several   members   of  the   Rothschild   family. 

In  1896,  by  the  sale  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  Crown 
jewels,  a  Caisse  des  Musees  was  organised,  and  the  annual  income 
devoted  to  the  purchase  of  pictures  notably  increased.  A  year 
later  the  Sodete  des  Amis  du  Louvre,  which  corresponds  to  the 
National  Art-Collections  Fund  in  England,  was  founded  to  assist 
in  securing  pictures  and  other  works  of  art  for  the  nation  ;  by 
that  means  the  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1300a  or  1300b)  which 
passes  under  the  name  of  Piero  dei  Franceschi  was  acquired  by 
the  Louvre. 

In  May  1900,  on  the  inauguration  of  the  Exposition  Universelle, 
the  opportunity  was  taken  to  rehang  a  large  part  of  the 
collection,  and  the  Galerie  de  Medicis  (Room  XVIII.)  and  the 
eighteen  small  cabinets  built  round  it  were  first  used  for  the 
better  exhibition  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  Flemish  and 
Dutch  pictures.  Shortly  afterwards,  by  the  death  of  M.  Thomy 
Thi^ry,  an  Englishman  who  had  become  a  naturalised  French- 
man, over  100  paintings,  mostly  of  the  school  of  Barbizon, 
became  an  exceedingly  valuable  addition  to  the  Louvre,  and 
filled  a  void  in  the  history  of  French  painting  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.  During  the  last  two  years  the  most  memorable 
purchases  by  the  Government  have  been  that  of  Chardin's  Child 
with  a  Top  (No.  90a),  which  was  acquired  together  with  the 
same  artist's  Young  Man  with  a  Violin  (No.  90b)  for  £14,000,  and 
Hans  Memlinc's  Portrait  of  an  Old  Lady  (Plate  XVII.)  for  £8000. 

The  national  collection  of  the  Musee  du  Louvre  now  includes 
in  its  Catalogue  nearly  two  thousand  eight  hundred  oil  and  tempera 
paintings,  about  four  hundred  of  which  have  not  been  exhibited  for 
many  years. 


EARLY  SIENESE  SCHOOL 


\ 


THIS  school  of  painting,  one  of  the  earliest  in  the  history  of 
art   in   Italy   and   probably   the  earliest  with   which  the 
ordinary   student    of  art   in   Italy   will    concern    himself, 
was   aflfected  throughout   the   whole   range   of  its   history   by  the         I 
influence  of  the  miniaturists.    It  was  characterised  by  naivete,  and  in 

the  hands  of  its  earliest  painter,  Duccio  di  Buoninsegna  (1255-1319),     j 

strove  to  realise  an  effect  of  hieratic  sumptuousness,  its  precision 
and  grace  being  that  of  "a  sanctuary  swept  and  garnished." 

The  Louvre  possesses  no  picture  by  Duccio,  who  derived  his 
technique  from  the  Byzantine  miniaturists,  although  he  modified 
their  methods.  Standing  between  the  old  world  and  the  new, 
Duccio  occupied  an  important  position  at  the  head  of  the  school 
of  Siena,  which  in  the  early  years  of  the  fourteenth  century  set 
a  noble  example  to  the  other  towns  and  incipient  schools  of 
Tuscany.  Passing  reference  may  here  be  made  to  the  artistic  aims 
and  religious  aspirations  of  the  cities  of  Rome,  Pisa,  and  Arezzo, 
but  it  is  Siena  which  stands  out  pre-eminently  at  this  early  date 
as  interpreting  scenes  of  quiet  rapture  and  sacred  peace,  its  own 
social  life  being  bound  up  in  "chivalry,  the  meat  of  the  eye," 
and  "piety,  the  wine  of  the  soul."  Both  Duccio,  who  was  first 
employed  by  the  Government  of  his  native  city  as  early  as  1278, 
and  Cimabue,  his  senior  by  fifteen  years  (if  we  are  to  accept  the 
much  contested  records),  have  alike  been  hailed  as  the  author  of 
the  Rucellai  Madonna  which  still  hangs  in  the  Church  of  S.  Maria 
Novella  in  Florence.     This  picture  was   a  generation  ago  almost 

unanimously  accepted   by  responsible   critics   as  the  work   of  the 

15 


16  THE  LOUVRE 

Florentine  painter,  and  those  who  still  advocate  the  claims  of 
"  Florentinism "  are  loath  to  destroy  their  cherished  illusions.  It 
is  not  our  duty  here  to  bring  forward  the  arguments  in  favour 
of  its  later  ascription  to  Duccio,  who,  we  are  led  to  believe, 
painted  it  early  in  his  career,  before  he  had  learnt  to  free  himself 
from  the  stiff  gestures  and  Byzantine  types  of  a  former  tradition. 
Duccio,  it  must  be  conceded,  never  quite  succeeded  in  giving  to 
his  compositions  that  sense  of  life,  character,  and  design  which 
we  find  in  the  works  of  Giotto,  his  junior  by  some  twenty  years, 
who  was  the  first  artist  to  accomplish  vast  schemes  of  monu- 
mental decoration.  Duccio,  however,  was  the  bearer  of  that  torch 
which  was  to  kindle  the  flame  of  religious  art  both  in  Siena  and 
Florence.  Nevertheless,  Sienese  painting  was  destined,  almost 
from  the  moment  of  its  birth,  to  show  signs  of  dwindling  into  a 
school  of  trite  copyists  and  shallow  quietists.  Early  in  the  four- 
teenth century  the  lofty  ideals  manifested  by  emotional  Siena 
spread  to  scientific  Florence,  and  by  the  beginning  of  the 
fifteenth  century  the  city  on  the  Arno  gave  unmistakable  signs 
of  becoming  the  leading  art  centre  in  Tuscany. 


DUCCIO'S   FOLLOWERS 

The  greatest  of  Duccio's  followers  was  Simone  Martini  (1285  ?- 
1344),  who  was  also  slightly  influenced  by  Giotto.  Simone,  whose 
Christ  hearing  His  Cross  (No.  1383,  Plate  I.)  is  the  earliest 
Sienese  picture  in  the  Louvre,  has  been  well  described  as  "a 
reactionary  who  made  a  whole  beautiful  world  of  his  own."  In 
this  small  picture  the  colours  stand  out  most  clearly,  although 
the  drawing  and  perspective  are,  of  course,  faulty.  It  belongs  to 
a  series  of  which  other  panels  are  at  Antwerp  and  in  the  Kaiser 
Friedrich  Museum  at  Berlin.  A  Crucifixion  (No.  1665)  that  is 
catalogued  as  being  by  an  unknown  Sienese  artist  may  be  attri- 


PLATE  I.— SIMONE  MARTINI 
(1285  J-1344) 

SIENESE  SCHOOL 

No.  1383.— CHRIST  BEARING  HIS  CROSS 
(Jesus-Christ  marchant  au  Calvaire) 

Christ,  preceded  by  the  executioner,  soldiers,  and  two  children,  is  bearing  His  Cross  to  Calvary.  He 
is  attended  by  a  large  crowd  in  which  may  be  recognised  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  blue  robes,  supported  by  St. 
John  ;  St.  Mary  Magdalene  in  red,  with  her  long  hair  falling  over  her  shoulders,  raises  her  hands  in  grief. 

Painted  in  tempera  on  panel. 

10  in.  X  4  in.     (0-25  x  O'lO.) 


I 


EARLY  SIENESE  SCHOOL  17 

buted  to  Ugolino  da  Siena  (fl.   1290-1320) ;  it  would  seem  to  be 
the  centre  panel  of  a  large  and  lost  altarpiece. 

Pietro  Lorenzetti  (fl.  1305-50)  was  probably  a  pupil  of 
Duccio,  and  was  influenced  by  Simone  Martini,  but  Pietro  and 
his  younger  brother,  Ambrogio  Lorenzetti  (1285? -1348?),  who 
represented  a  new  movement  and  endeavoured  to  set  forth  the 
civic  ideal,  are  not  represented  in  this  collection. 

Simone  Martini's  brother-in-law,  Lippo  Memmi  (died  1357?), 
is  possibly  the  author  of  the  St.  Peter  (No.  1152),  a  poor  picture 
which  is  officially  assigned  to  Taddeo  di  Bartolo  (1362  ?-1422). 
The  art  of  the  latter  is,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Berenson,  seen  in 
the  small  Crucifixion  (No.  1622),  which  the  Louvre  authorities 
modestly  catalogue  as  being  by  an  unknown  fourteenth-century 
Italian  painter. 

To  Bartolo  di  Maestro  Fredi  (1330  ?-1410),  who  came  under 
the  influence  of  Lippo  Memmi  and  the  Lorenzetti,  is  given  a 
Presentation  in  the  Temple  (No.  1151).  Paolo  di  Giovanni  Fei 
(fl.  1372-1410),  whose  pictures  are  rarely  met  with  out  of  Italy, 
may  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  the  Madonna  and  Saints 
(No.  1314)  which  is  officially  held  to  be  by  an  unknown  Florentine 
painter  of  the  school  of  Giotto.  The  Louvre  possesses  no  example 
of  the  art  of  Sassetta  (1392-1450),  who,  together  with  Paolo  di 
Giovanni  Fei,  deeply  impressed  Giovanni  di  Paolo  (1403  ?-1482). 
The  latter  may  be  credited  with  the  small  panel  (No.  1659a) 
which  is  officially  entitled  The  Entry  of  Pope  Martin  into  the 
Castle  of  Saint  Angelo,  and  included  in  the  Catalogue  as  being  by 
an  unknown  Florentine,  but  labelled  "  School  of  Masaccio."  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  quaint  little  picture  depicts  Pope  Gregory 
the  Oreai's  Vision  of  the  Archangel  Michael  sheathing  his  Sword  over 
the  Castle  of  Saint  Angelo.  According  to  the  legend,  Gregory  had 
been  indefatigable  in  nursing  the  plague-stricken  in  Rome  in  the 
sixth  century,  and  while  on  his  way  at  the  head  of  a  procession 


18  THE  LOUVRE 

to  oflfer  up  prayer  for  the  cessation  of  the  plague,  saw  "  the  warrior 
of  God"  in  the  attitude  here  shown.  Gregory,  after  fleeing  from 
those  who  wished  to  make  him  Pope,  was  elected  to  wear  the 
papal  tiara  under  the  title  of  Gregory  the  Great.  He  is  chiefly 
known  to  us  as  having  sent  missionaries  to  preach  the  gospel  in 
England,  having  been  moved  to  pity  by  seeing  British  captives 
exposed  for  sale  in  Rome,  and  for  his  arrangement  of  the  music 
of  the  chants  which  are  after  him  known  as  Gregorians.  The  ofiicial 
title  of  the  picture,  on  the  other  hand,  assumes  that  we  have 
here  Pope  Martin  v.,  a  man  of  saintly  character,  making  his 
entry  into  Rome  in  1421  amid  the  acclamations  of  the  people. 
He  had  been  elected  Pope  in  1417  on  the  deposition  of  John  xxiii. 

By  this  time  the  art  of  Siena  had  progressed  some  distance 
on  the  road  that  its  religious  aspirations  and  technical  accomplish- 
ments indicated,  but  it  soon  became  evident  that  the  more 
intellectual  aims  of  Florentine  art  were  shaping  the  course  of  all 
the  painters  of  Italy. 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL 

ALTHOUGH  we  have  begun  our  study  of  the  art  of  Italy 
with  a  review  of  the  Sienese  School,  which  owes  its 
importance  to  Duccio,  the  earliest  Italian  picture  in  the 
Louvre  is  the  Madonna  and  Angels  (No.  1260),  which  may  be 
accepted  as  a  characteristic  example  of  the  type  of  picture  that 
passes  under  the  name  of  Cimabue  (1240?-1302).  --- 

Giovanni  Cenni  de'  Pepi,  to  give  him  his  full  name,  has  been 
hailed  as  "the  father  of  modern  painting."  The  Louvre  Madonna, 
which  was  formerly  in  the  Church  of  San  Francesco  at  Pisa,  was 
carried  off  to  Paris  by  Napoleon,  but  not  considered  worth  the 
trouble  of  repacking  when  in  1815  the  Allied  Armies  called  upon 
the  French  to  surrender  the  pictorial  spoils  of  war.  It  is  known 
that  Cimabue  was  working  at  Pisa  at  the  very  end  of  his  life, 
and,  although  he  was  engaged  there  as  mosaicist  rather  than  as 
a  painter,  the  provenance  of  this  large  painting,  which  is  executed 
in  tempera  on  panel,  has  to  be  taken  into  account  in  any  dis- 
cussion as  to  its  strict  authenticity.  It  is  certainly  reminiscent 
of  the  Rucellai  Madonna,  and  shares  much  of  its  character.  The 
painter  has  repeated,  with  certain  modifications,  the  Byzantine 
type  of  Madonna,  whose  almond-shaped  eyes  and  long,  bony 
fingers  should  be  noticed.     It  has  been  fi:eely  restored. 

From  the  same  church  in   Pisa  comes  Giotto's  St.  Francis  of 

Assist  receiving  the  Stigmata  (No.  1312).     According  to  the  descriptive 

account  handed  down  to  us  by  the   unveracious  Vasari,   Giotto 

(1266-1337)  was  originally  a  shepherd  boy  whose  latent  talent  was 

recognised  by  the  discerning  Cimabue,  who  forthwith  took  him  as 

19 


20  THE  LOUVRE 

his  pupil  and  taught  him  how  to  paint,  the  boy's  genius  enabling 
him  early  to  surpass  his  master.  Although  it  would  be  rash 
unquestioningly  to  accept  this  archaic  production  as  an  authentic 
work  by  Giotto,  it  is  one  which  any  national  collection  would 
treasure.  It  depicts  the  supreme  event  in  the  life  of  St.  Francis, 
when  during  his  vision  virtue  passed  from  the  wounded  hands, 
the  wounded  feet,  and  the  wounded  side  of  the  Christ  into  the 
same  parts  of  the  saint's  body.  In  the  predella  are  three  scenes 
from  the  life  of  St.  Francis :  (a)  Pope  Innocent  III.  dreaming  that 
St.  Peter  reveals  to  him  that  unless  the  Franciscan  Order  is  founded 
the  Church  (typified  here  by  the  Church  of  S.  John  Lateran  in 
Rome)  will  fall  down ;  (5)  The  Pope  founding  the  Order ;  and  (c)  St. 
Francis,  wearing  the  brown  robes  of  his  Order,  and  preaching  to  the 
birds :  "  Whenas  St.  Francis  spake  these  words  to  them,  those 
birds  began  all  of  them  to  open  their  beaks,  and  stretch  their 
necks,  and  spread  their  wings,  and  reverently  bend  their  heads 
down  to  the  ground,  and  by  their  acts  and  by  their  songs  to  show 
that  the  Holy  Father  gave  them  joy  exceeding  great." 


THE   GIOTTESQUES 

Four  school  pictures  (Nos.  1313,  1315-1317)  illustrate  the 
example  set  by  Giotto,  who  influenced  very  strongly  indeed  all  art- 
manifestation  during  the  fourteenth  century,  an  age  when  the  human 
body  was  denied  all  intrinsic  significance.  His  profound  feeling,  gay 
colour,  high  dramatic  power,  and  sense  of  form  mark  the  emancipa- 
tion of  Italian  art  from  the  rigid  formalism  of  the  Byzantine  manner. 
He  discovered  a  style  which  was  admirably  suited  to  the  spirit  of 
his  time,  and  developed  for  his  own  purposes  a  sense  of  perspective 
which  he  employed  with  considerable  effect,  although  he  never  really 
found  a  scientific  statement  of  the  artistic  principles  which  he 
instinctively  perceived.     His  indefatigable  energy  and  innate  genius 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL  21 

enabled  him  to  distance  his  rivals  and  to  bequeath  to  his  country- 
men a  heritage  which  profoundly  affected  the  art  of  Italy. 

Foremost  among  his  followers,  who  imitated  his  mannerisms 
without  understanding  the  full  significance  of  his  ideas,  was  Taddeo 
Gaddi  (1300  ?-l  366),  to  whom  are  assigned  in  the  ofiicial  Catalogue 
the  predella  pictures  (No.  1302)  of  (a)  The  Death  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  (b)  Calvary,  and  (c)  Judas  Iscariot.  Taddeo  Gaddi,  a 
painter  and  architect,  was  the  godson  and  pupil  of  Giotto  as  well 
as  the  pupil  of  his  father,  Gaddo  Gaddi.  Taddeo's  desire  to  give 
suitable  expression  to  each  of  his  figures  often  resulted,  as  in  that 
of  the  daughter  of  Herodias  in  the  second  of  these  panels,  in 
exaggeration. 

Taddeo's  son,  Agnolo  Gaddi  (1333-1396),  who  was  described 
by  Ruskin  as  "rather  stupid  in  religious  matters  and  high  art," 
may  be  the  painter  of  the  Annunciation  (No.  1301),  in  which  we 
see  the  Virgin  seated  in  a  loggia  to  the  right  of  the  picture. 
The  Archangel  Gabriel  announces,  by  the  gesture  of  the  right 
hand,  that  the  Virgin  shall  be  the  Mother  of  the  Christ.  God 
the  Father  is  shown  in  the  heavens.  Notice  the  gold  back- 
ground and  the  mosaics  of  the  loggia.  The  mechanical  methods 
and  uninspired  aims  of  the  Giottesques,  the  artists  who  worked 
during  the  century  which  followed  the  death  of  Giotto,  are  well 
seen  in  the  productions  of  Lorenzo  di  Bicci  (fl.  1370-1409),  his  son 
Bicci  di  Lorenzo  (fl.  1373-1424),  and  his  grandson  Neri  di  Bicci 
(1419-1491).  Neri  is  represented  by  a  Madonna  and  Child  (No. 
1397).  He  might  justly  be  described  as  a  mere  manufacturer  of 
Giottesque  pictures  to  order.  He  brought  art  down  to  the  level  of 
a  trade,  his  work  being  flat  and  his  colour  raw  and  inharmonious. 

A  Virgin  and  Infant  Christ  (No.  1563),  inscribed  "tvrinvs 
VANNis  DE  pisis  ME  piQsiT  p,"  is  evidently  by  Turino  Vanni  (fl. 
1390-1398),  a  rare  artist  of  this  group  of  Florentine  painters. 
The  brief  list  of  his  pictures  might  be  increased  by  having  added 


22  THE  LOUVRE 

to  it  a  few  panels  at  Pisa  and  Assisi,  which  are  erroneously 
ascribed  to   Buflfalmacco. 

Andrea  Orcagna  (1308  ?-1368  ?)  and  his  brother  Nardo  are  not 
represented  in  the  Louvre,  but  we  have  a  follower  of  Agnolo  Gaddi 
in  Lorenzo  Monaco  (1370  ?-1425),  who  is  seen  to  advantage  in  his 
Christ  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane  and  his  Holy  Women  preparing 
the  Tomb  (No.  1348a),  which  is  inscribed  "  anno  dni  1408,"  and  was 
formerly  attributed  to  Gentile  da  Fabriano.  Lorenzo  Monaco  is 
officially  credited  with  a  triple  picture  (No.  1348)  of  (a)  St.  Agnes 
with  her  lamb  and  a  martyr's  palm  branch ;  ih)  St.  Lawrence,  the 
artist's  name-saint,  holding  in  his  right  hand  a  book  and  palm 
branch,  and  enthroned  on  a  gridiron,  the  symbol  of  his  martyrdom ; 
and  (c)  St.  Margaret,  the  patron  saint  of  Woman  as  Mother,  stand- 
ing on  the  dragon.  Lorenzo  Monaco,  who  is  reputed  to  have  been 
the  master  of  Fra  Angelico,  usually  depicts  long,  slender,  and 
sinuous  bodies.  Below  this  picture  hangs  a  small  panel,  appar- 
ently part  of  the  predella  of  an  unidentified  altarpiece.  It  does 
not  seem  to  be  included  in  the  official  Catalogue,  and  has  neither 
a  number  by  which  to  identify  it  nor  a  label  to  denote  its  subject 
or  authorship !  The  picture  has  apparently  never  been  referred  to 
or  described  in  any  article  or  book.  It  certainly  represents  the 
Emperor  Heraclius  carrying  the  True  Cross  into  Jerusalem.  The 
picture  appears  to  have  been  painted  by  Giovanni  del  Ponte 
(fl.  1385-1437). 

Neither  Stamina  (1354-1408),  who  took  the  traditions  of  Early 
Florentine  painting  to  Spain,  Masolino  (fl.  1383-1435),  who  is  rarely 
met  with  out  of  Italy,  nor  Masaccio  (1401-28),  who  may  be  said 
to  have  vitalised  ItaUan  art,  is  represented  in  the  Louvre. 
Tommaso  Masaccio,  the  "Hulking  Tom"  of  Browning,  gave  to 
Italy  and  the  world  the  magnificent  series  of  frescoes  which  still 
decorate  the  Brancacci  Chapel  of  the  Carmine  Church  in  Florence. 
He   imparted  to    his    figures    such    natural    movement,     vivacity 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL  23 

of  expression,  free  attitudes,  simple  draperies,  and  excellent  model- 
ling that  he  entirely  revolutionised  the  art  of  Florence.  His 
figures  are,  as  Vasari  said,  "so  lifelike  that  they  seem  to  live  and 
breathe."  This  series  of  frescoes  was  studied  with  enthusiasm  by 
all  the  great  Florentine  painters ;  Leonardo,  Raphael,  Michel- 
angelo, and  innumerable  other  artists  derived  the  greatest  possible 
benefit  from  them. 

FRA  ANGELICO 

On  the  threshold  of  the  Renaissance  stands  Fra  Angelico 
(1387-1455),  who  was  trained  in  the  school  of  miniaturists  and 
influenced  by  Lorenzo  Monaco  and  Masaccio.  His  life  was  devoted 
to  "the  service  of  God,  the  benefit  of  the  world,  and  his  duty 
towards  his  neighbour,"  as  Vasari  says.  He  regarded  painting 
as  one  of  the  duties  of  the  monastic  life,  and  never  began  to 
paint  without  first  kneeling  in  prayer.  His  pictures  are 
aspirations  towards  heaven,  while  the  figures  with  which  he 
peoples  his  saintly  compositions  have  faces  which  show  peace,  joy, 
hope,  and  communion  with  God.  They  are  clothed  in  draperies  of 
the  purest  colours,  crowned  with  glories  of  burnished  gold,  but  are 
never  dramatic  in  their  action.  One  of  his  best  easel  paintings 
outside  Florence,  where  alone  his  art  can  be  adequately  studied,  is 
his  early  Coronation  of  the  Virgin  (No.  1290).  This  imposing,  if 
overcrowded,  composition  is  painted  to  the  glory  of  God  and  in 
honour  of  the  Dominican  Order,  to  which  the  painter  belonged. 
In  the  right  bottom  corner  we  see  St.  Agnes  with  her  lamb,  next 
to  her  St.  Catherine  with  her  wheel,  above  is  St.  Lawrence  with 
his  gridiron,  and  to  the  latter's  right  St.  Peter  Martyr  in  Dominican 
robes  and  with  wounded  head.  In  the  foreground  kneels  St.  Mary 
Magdalene  in  red,  her  box  of  ointment  in  her  left  hand.  St. 
Nicholas  with  the  three  golden  balls  at  his  feei,  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas     in     Dominican     robes     and     holding     the     theological 


24  THE  LOUVRE 

book  from  which  rays  of  golden  light  issue,  St.  Louis  (Louis  ix., 
King  of  France),  and  St.  Dominic  himself — all  help  to  swell 
the  heavenly  company.  In  the  predella,  or  lower  part,  of  this 
panel  picture  are  depicted  Scenes  from  the  Life  of  St.  Dominic,  the 
founder  of  Fra  Angelico's  own  Order :  {a)  Pope  Innocent  iii.  in 
his  vision  sees  St.  Dominic  supporting  the  falUng  Church ;  (5)  the 
Pope  receives,  through  the  agency  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  who 
hand  him  a  staff  and  the  Gospel,  Divine  authority  to  found  the 
Dominican  Order ;  (c)  the  Saint  brings  back  to  life  a  young  noble 
named  Napoleon  who  had  been  trampled  under  foot  by  a  horse ; 
{d)  Christ  in  the  tomb,  the  Virgin  and  St.  John ;  (e)  St.  Dominic 
challenges  heretics  whose  books  are  consumed  in  the  fire,  while 
his  own  book  of  the  true  Gospel  issues  forth  unhurt  by  the  action 
of  fire ;  {f)  angels  descend  from  heaven  to  feed  the  starving 
monastery  of  St.  Sabina  at  Rome  immediately  after  St.  Dominic 
has  asked  a  blessing ;  these  two  blue-clad  figures  are  among  the 
loveliest  of  all  Fra  Angelico's  angelic  beings,  and  perhaps  the  most 
inspiring  figures  in  the  whole  of  the  Louvre  collection ;  {g)  the 
death  of  the  Saint  at  Bologna  and  the  passing  of  his  soul  up  to 
heaven  in  accordance  with  the  vision  of  the  monk  at  Brescia. 
This  early  Cinquecento  panel  picture,  which  was  formerly  in 
the  Church  of  S.  Domenico  at  Fiesole,  near  Florence,  was 
painted  before  the  Beato  went  to  beautify  the  cells  of  S.  Marco 
with  frescoes.  It  is  one  of  the  best  of  the  primitive  pictures  in 
the  Louvre. 

From  the  hand  of  the  same  saintly  painter  are  the  Adoring 
Angel  (no  No.),  which  until  1909  was  in  the  Victor  Gay  collection, 
the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Cosmo  and  St.  Damian  (No.  1293),  part  of 
the  predella  of  a  dismembered  altarpiece,  and  the  large  fresco 
painting  of  the  Crucifixion  (No.  1294)  which  hangs  on  the  Escalier 
Daru.  The  latter  was  purchased,  together  with  Domenico  Ghir- 
landaio's  Bottle-nosed  Man  (No.  1322,  Plate  III.),  in  1879  for  £1960. 


THE   FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  25 

The  Beheading  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  (No.  1291)  and  the  Resurrec- 
tion (No.  1294a)  are  unauthentic. 

In  Benozzo  Gozzoli  (1420-1498)  we  have  an  assistant  and 
follower  of  Fra  Angelico.  He  worked  at  different  towns  in  Italy, 
notably  at  Montefalco,  Orvieto,  Florence,  San  Gimignano,  Rome, 
and  Pisa,  where  he  died.  Although  his  earlier  work  reminds  us 
of  Fra  Angelico,  than  whom  he  is  much  more  dramatic  and  much 
less  spiritual,  in  later  life  he  depicts  the  costumes  and  life  of  his 
time  in  a  more  realistic  and  objective  manner.  His  Triumph 
of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  (No.  1319),  which  originally  hung  in  the 
Cathedral  at  Pisa,  deals  with  a  subject  often  met  with  in  the  art 
of  the  period.  The  great  Dominican  teacher,  whom  the  heathen 
philosophers,  Aristotle  on  the  left,  and  Plato  on  the  right,  recog- 
nise as  their  master  in  philosophy,  is  enthroned,  his  books  of 
theological  learning  on  his  knees.  At  his  feet,  subdued,  is  Guil- 
laume  de  St.  Amour,  the  author  of  a  book  entitled  De  Periculis 
JVovissimorum  Temporum,  in  which  he  exposed  the  various  abuses 
then  prevalent  among  the  mendicants.  The  dramatic  action  seen 
in  the  lower  part  of  the  panel  embraces  Pope  Alexander  iv. 
presiding  over  the  religious  council  of  Agnani,  and  the  envoys 
of  St.  Louis  (Louis  ix.  of  France)  who  took  steps  to  end  the 
religious  conflicts  of  1256.  A  large  altarpiece  (No.  1320)  repre- 
senting the  Madonna  and  Child  Enthroned,  St.  Cosmo,  St.  Damian, 
St.  Jerome,  St.  John  the  Baptist,  St.  Francis  d'Assisi,  and  St. 
Lavyrence  in  the  central  panel  is  also  assigned  to  Benozzo.  The 
frame  also  contains  seven  predella  pictures,  and  at  either  end  is 
the  coat  of  arms  of  the  Medici  family. 

The  great  French  Museum,  which  is  weaker  than  the  National 
Gallery,  the  Berlin  Gallery,  and  certain  other  national  collections 
in  Italian  primitives,  affords  us  no  example  of  the  art  of  Andrea 
del  Castagno  (fl.  1410-1457),  whose  compositions  are  characterised 
ty  harsh   colour,   hard   lines,  and   crude  forms.     Nor  do  we  find 


26  THE  LOUVRE 

here  any  painting  by  that  very  rare  artist,  Domenico  Veneziano 
(1400?-1461),  who,  it  has  been  said,  was  the  first  Tuscan  artist 
to  work  in  an  oil  medium. 


PAOLO  UCCELLO 

Prominent  among  the  masters  who  were  influenced  by  Dona- 
tello,  the  sculptor,  and  Lorenzo  Ghiberti,  the  first  metal-worker 
in  elegant  forms,  is  Paolo  di  Dono,  generally  known  as  Uccello. 
His  profound  study  and  ultimate  discovery  of  the  laws  of  linear 
perspective  was  enhanced  by  the  inquiries  into  the  laws  of  aerial 
perspective  that  Fra  Angelico  studied  so  deeply.  Paolo  Uccello 
(1397-1475)  was  a  pupil  and  assistant  of  Lorenzo  Ghiberti,  who 
made  the  bronze  doors  for  the  East  Side  of  the  Baptistery  at 
Florence.  He  gave  himself  up  to  the  scientific  study  of  per- 
spective, the  principles  of  which  he  was  one  of  the  first  to  apply 
to  painting,  thus  rendering  incalculable  services  to  art.  In  his 
Battlepiece  (No.  1273)  is  seen  a  mounted  soldier  in  armour  with 
his  sword  drawn ;  on  the  left  are  horsemen  about  to  charge  with 
couchant  lances,  while  on  the  right  cavalry-men  are  drawn  up 
awaiting  orders,  their  lances  in  rest.  The  correctness  of  the 
perspective  and  the  justice  of  the  foreshortenings  and  the  move- 
ments of  the  foot-men  in  the  intervals  of  the  cavalry  mark  an 
epoch  in  art.  This  is  the  third  and  right-hand  panel  of  the 
series  of  three  battle-pictures  which  Uccello  painted  for  the  Cgisa 
Medici  (now  the  Riccardi  Palace)  in  Florence  for  Cosimo  de'  Medici 
about  the  year  1457,  and  not,  as  the  official  Catalogue  asserts,  for 
the  Bartolini  family.  The  best  preserved  of  these  three  large 
panel  pictures  illustrating  the  Roiii  of  San  Romano  in  lJpS2  is 
that  in  the  National  Gallery  (No.  583),  while  the  second  or  centre 
panel  of  the  series  is  now  in  the  Uffizi  (No.  52).  The  Louvre 
panel  is  in  a  deplorable  condition,  caused  by  long  neglect. 


THE  FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  27 

Uccello's  Poiiraits  of  Giotto,  PojoIo  Uccello,  Antonio  Manetti,  and 
Filippo  Brunelleschi  (No.  1272),  whose  names  are  in  this  order 
on  the  panel,  is  a  work  of  considerable  importance,  as  marking 
an  early  stage  in  the  development  of  portraiture.  This  picture, 
which  is  referred  to  at  some  length  by  Vasari,  constitutes  a  historical 
document.  The  Italian  chronicler  tells  us  that  Uccello  "was 
a  person  of  eccentric  character  and  peculiar  habits,  but  he  was 
a  great  lover  of  ability  in  those  of  his  own  art,  and,  to  the  end 
that  their  memory  should  remain  to  posterity,  he  drew  with  his 
own  hand  on  an  oblong  picture  the  portraits  of  five  distinguished 
men,  which  he  kept  in  his  house  as  a  memorial  of  them.  The 
first  of  these  portraits  was  that  of  the  painter  Giotto,  as  one 
who  had  given  light  and  new  life  to  the  art ;  the  second  was 
Filippo  di  Ser  Brunellesco,  for  architecture ;  the  third  was 
Donatello,  for  sculpture ;  the  fourth  was  himself,  for  perspective 
and  animals ;  the  fifth  was  his  Mend  Giovanni  {dc)  Manetti,  for 
mathematics.  With  this  philosopher  Paolo  conferred  very  fre- 
quently, and  held  continual  discourse  with  him  concerning  the 
problems  of  Euclid."  Manetti's  real  Christian  name,  Antonio,  is 
correctly  inscribed  on  the  panel,  but  is  inaccurately  given  as 
Giovanni  by  Vasari  and  on  the  official  label. 

The  St.  John  the  Baptist  as  a  Child  (No.  1274),  which  hangs  in  the 
Long  Gallery,  is  labelled  as  a  picture  of  the  Florentine  school,  and 
catalogued  as  being  by  Uccello.     It  is  perhaps  by  Piero  di  Cosimo. 

We  enter  on  the  first  period  of  the  coming  Renaissance 
with  Fra  Filippo  Lippi  (1406-1469),  who  was  trained  in  the  best 
school  of  Florentine  painting.  He  was  a  pupil  of  Lorenzo  Monaco, 
came  under  the  influence  of  Fra  Angelico,  and  was  affected  by 
the  magic  spell  of  Masaccio,  whom  he  must  have  seen  at  work 
in  the  Brancacci  Chapel.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  Quattrocento 
the  cult  of  love  and  beauty  was  rapidly  dethroning  the  more 
austere    ideals    of   an    earlier  age.      Filippo    Lippi's   stormy   and 


28  THE  LOUVRE 

romantic  career  passes  into  a  new  phase  with  his  residence  at  Prato 
in  1452.  Four  years  later  he  was  appointed  Chaplain  to  the  nuns 
of  S.  Margherita  in  that  town.  The  year  before  his  arrival  in  Prato, 
Lucrezia  and  Spinetta,  the  orphan  daughters  (aged  eighteen  and 
seventeen  respectively)  of  Francesco  Buti,  had,  apparently  much 
against  their  will,  been  placed  in  the  Convent,  the  abbess  of  which 
commissioned  the  Frate  to  paint  a  picture  of  the  Madonna  delta 
Cintola.  Lucrezia  posed  to  the  painter-chaplain  for  the  figure  of 
the  Madonna  in  that  picture.  On  May  1,  1456,  on  the  occasion 
of  the  exhibition  of  the  Holy  Girdle  of  the  Virgin,  a  precious 
relic  still  preserved  at  Prato,  the  painter  bore  off  Lucrezia 
out  of  the  safe  keeping  of  the  convent.  A  short  summary  of 
these  well-known  facts  is  suggested  by  the  view  which  is  put 
forward  in  the  official  Catalogue  of  the  Louvre,  to  the  effect  that 
the  Madonna  delta  Cintola  is  to  be  identified  with  the  Nativity 
(No.  1343)  in  this  Gallery.  The  weight  of  evidence  is  against 
this  theory ;  in  fact,  this  large  panel  picture  has  little  claim 
to  be  regarded  as  the  work  of  Fra  Filippo.  One  critic  has 
given  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  Naiivity  was  begun  by  Fra 
Filippo  and  completed  by  Fra  Diamante,  who  succeeded  him  as 
Chaplain  at  Prato.  Others  have  attributed  the  picture  to  Pesellino, 
Baldovinetti,  and  Stefano  da  Zevio  respectively.  It  seems  to 
show  the  influence  of  Andrea  del  Castagno.  The  official  Catalogue 
does  not  indicate  the  provenance  of  the  picture,  although  it  implies 
that  it  came  from  the  Convent  at  Prato  at  the  time  when  it  was 
brought  to  Paris  by  Napoleon.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
Madonna  delta  Cintola  is  the  painting  thus  named  which  still  hangs 
in  the  place  of  honour  in  the  Municipal  Gallery  at  Prato. 

The  Louvre  does,  however,  possess  in  the  Madonna  and  Child 
with  Angels  and  Two  Abbots  (No.  1344,  Plate  II.)  one  of  the  best  of 
the  Frate's  creations,  although  the  colouring  has  suffered  con- 
siderably.    It  is  an  early  work,  and  was  painted  about  1437  for  the 


PLATE   II.— FEA   FILIPPO   LIPPI 

(1406-1469) 

FLORENTINE  SCHOOL 

No.  1344.— MADONNA  AND  CHILD,    WITH  ANGELS  AND  TWO  ABBOTS 
(La  Vierge  et  I'Enfant  Jesus  entre  deux  abbes) 

The  Virgin  stands  before  the  throne  liokling  the  Infant  Christ  to  the  adoration  of  two  kTieeling 
abbots  and  surrounded  by  six  angels  carrying  lilies.  To  the  left  a  monk  leans  over  the  balustrade,  and 
two  small  child-angels  flank  the  composition  on  either  side. 

Painted  in  tempera  on  panel. 

7  ft.  IJ  in.  X  8  ft.  Oi  in.     (2-17  x  2-44.) 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL  29 

Barbadori  Chapel  in  Santo  Spirito.  It  contains  beauty  of  line, 
freshness  of  colour,  and  much  variety  in  the  composition.  The  cast 
of  the  draperies  is  ample  and  the  motives  are  novel  and  bold,  the 
Renaissance  background  throwing  into  prominent  relief  the  soulful 
and  ideal  figure  of  the  Madonna.  The  predella  panels  of,  this  dis- 
membered altarpiece,  for  which  Era  Filippo  received  forty  gold 
florins,  are  now  in  the  Accademia  at  Florence.  They  depict  (a) 
JSt  Ffediano  deviating  the  Course  of  the  River  Serchio ;  ih)  The  Virgin 
receiving  the  Announcement  of  her  Coming  Decease  ;  and  (c)  St.  Augustine 
in  his  Study.  The  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1345)  is  only  a  school 
picture. 

In  1457,  the  year  that  Fra  Filippo's  son  Filippino  was  born,  his 
household  effects  and  box  of  colours  were  seized  for  debt.  He  lived 
on  until  October  4,  1469,  when  he  died  of  a  sudden  and  some- 
what mysterious  illness.  The  Frate,  who  is  the  connecting  link 
between  Masaccio,  the  first  blossom,  and  Raphael,  the  full  flower 
of  Florentine  painting,  was  the  master  of  Botticelli.  A  small 
Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1345)  has  little  claim  to  be  regarded 
as  the  work  of  Fra  Filippo. 

In  our  attempt  to  unravel  the  skein  of  Italian  art  in  this 
collection  and  to  sketch  its  history  in  strict  chronological  order  we 
may  now  consider  two  small  predella  panels  of  (a)  St.  Francis 
receiving  the  Stigmata  and  (6)  An  Incident  in  the  Life  of  St.  Cosmo  and 
St.  Damian  (No.  1414)  by  Francesco  Pesellino  (1422-1457).  The 
former  deals  with  a  subject  we  have  already  met  with  in  this  Gallery 
(No.  1312) ;  the  latter  is  a  new  theme.  St.  Cosmo  and  St.  Damian 
were  wealthy  men  and  spent  their  time  in  doing  charitable  works 
as  doctors  without  monetary  reward,  and  are  thus  sometimes  known 
as  "the  Holy  Money-despisers."  According  to  the  legend  here 
represented,  a  Christian  was  one  day  praying  to  these  saints  in  the 
church  dedicated  to  them  in  Rome  in  the  fervent  hope  that  he 
might  be  healed  of  cancer  in  the  leg.     While  thus  at  prayer  he 


30  THE  LOUVRE 

imagined  that  his  leg  was  amputated  and  replaced  by  that  of  a 
dead  Moor.  In  this  small  panel  the  saints  are  shown  in  the  act  of 
placing  the  black  man's  limb  on  the  body  of  the  Christian,  who,  no 
doubt,  will  before  long  be  healed.  St.  Cosmo  and  St.  Damian  being 
patron  saints  of  the  Medici  family  are  often  met  with  in  Florentine 
art.  "We  have  already  in  this  collection  looked  at  a  picture  (No, 
1293)  by  Fra  Angelico  illustrating  their  martyrdom.  Pesellino,  who 
studied  the  art  of  Fra  Angelico,  Masaccio,  and  Domenico  Veneziano, 
and  followed  somewhat  closely  in  the  steps  of  Fra  Filippo  Lippi, 
can  hardly  have  painted  the  small  three-panel  picture  oflicially 
ascribed  to  him  of  (a)  The  Bead  Christ,  (b)  A  Cardinal  supporting 
the  Bodies  of  Two  Men  who  have  been  hanged,  and  (c)  A  Cardinal 
appearing  in  a  Vision  to  a  Bishop.  This  small  work  (No.  1415), 
which  was  formerly  in  the  Campana  collection,  has  been  claimed 
by  Dr.  Venturi  and  Mr.  Berenson  to  be  by  the  Umbrian  artist, 
Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo. 

The  Madonna  and  Child  and  St.  Augitstin,  St.  John  the  Baptist, 
St.  Anthony,  and  St.  Francis  (No.  1661),  which  is  officially  catalogued 
as  being  by  an  Unknown  Florentine  artist,  and  has  been  variously 
attributed  to  Andrea  del  Castagno,  Fra  Filippo  Lippi,  and  Andrea 
Verrocchio,  may  be  assigned  to  that  nameless  contemporary  of 
Pesellino  whose  artistic  personality  was  a  few  years  ago  constructed 
by  Mrs.  Berenson  under  the  name  of  "  Compagno  di  Pesellino." 

The  art  of  the  Umbrian  artist,  Piero  dei  Franceschi  (1415  ?-1492), 
who  is  so  well  represented  in  the  National  Gallery,  is  not  seen  at 
the  Louvre,  where,  however,  a  Madonna  and  Child  passes  under  his 
name.  This  panel  (the  official  number  of  which  is  given  in  the 
Catalogue  as  1300b  and  on  the  frame  as  1300a)  was  formerly  in 
the  Duchatel  collection  before  passing  into  that  of  the  Due  de  la 
Tremoille,  from  whom  it  was  purchased  in  1898  for  £5200  by  the 
Societe  des  Amis  du  Louvre.  It  was  recognised  over  twelve  years 
ago  by  M.  Ary  Renan  as  the  work  of  Alessio  Baldovinetti  (1427- 


THE  FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  31 

1499),  who,  like  Piero  dei  Franceschi,  was  formed  on  Domenico 
Veneziano,  and  was  also  influenced  by  the  discoveries  and  methods 
of  Uccello. 

Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  also  had  made  that  attribution  before 
the  question  was  taken  up  by  Mr.  Berenson,  who  on  morphological 
and  aesthetic  grounds  unhesitatingly  ascribes  it  to  Baldovinetti. 
"Compared  with  Baldovinetti,"  writes  Mr.  Berenson,  "Piero  dei 
Franceschi  is  sterner  and  harder  and  more  monumental.  Piero's 
Madonnas  have  a  fixed  and  severe  physiognomy,  massive  structure 
and  immobile  pose ;  never  a  smile,  never  a  touch  of  tenderness." 
How  different  from  all  this  is  the  Madonna  by  Baldovinetti  before 
us,  with  her  "refined  features  and  her  pensive  gaze  of  adoration — 
a  look  that  unveils  her  inner  life,  a  look  that  will  soon  develop  into 
the  mystery  which  we  feel  in  the  face  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci's  Mona 
Lisa."  Vasari  tells  us  that  Baldovinetti  was  "extremely  careful 
and  exact  in  his  work,  and  of  all  the  minutiae  which  Mother 
Nature  is  capable  of  presenting,  he  took  pains  to  be  the  close 
imitator.  He  delighted  in  the  representation  of  landscape,  which  he 
depicted  with  the  utmost  exactitude ;  thus  we  find  in  his  pictures 
rivers,  bridges,  rocks,  herbs,  fruits,  paths,  fields,  cities,  castles, 
sands,  and  objects  innumerable  of  the  same  kind."  A  goodly 
number  of  these  are  included  in  the  background  of  this  picture. 

With  Antonio  PoUaiuolo  (1429-1498)  and  his  brother  Piero 
(1443-1496)  we  enter  on  a  more  scientific  era  in  Florentine  art. 
Masaccio  had  akeady  advanced  the  study  of  the  nude,  and  the 
influence  of  Donatello  (1386-1466)  and  other  sculptors  had  drawn 
the  attention  of  all  art-workers  to  the  fuller  significance  of  the 
human  form.  A  more  serious  attempt  was  now  made  by  the 
rising  generation  of  sculptors  and  painters,  among  whom  Antonio 
Pollaiuolo  and  Verrocchio  (1435-1488)  now  played  the  leading 
parts,  to  impart  to  the  human  figure  a  more  exact  physiological 
accuracy  and  so  give  it  greater  effectiveness.      The  advance  made 


32  THE  LOUVRE 

by  Baldovinetti  in  landscape  tended  also  to  a  more  real  sense  of 
movement  in  a  natural  environment.  The  Louvre  catalogues 
no  picture  under  the  name  of  either  of  the  PoUaiuoli,  but  a 
Madonna  (No.  1367a)  here  credited  to  Bastiano  Mainardi  was 
probably  executed  by  Piero,  who  frequently  worked  on  his  elder 
brother's  designs. 

The  influence  of  Alessio  Baldovinetti  is  reflected  in  the 
pictures  of  Cosimo  Rosselli  (1437-1507).  Nothing  is  officially 
ascribed  to  him  in  this  collection,  but  the  Annunciation,  with  St. 
John  the  Baptist,  St.  Anthony,  St.  Catherine,  and  St.  Peter  Martyr 
(No.  1656),  which  is  here  catalogued  as  by  an  Unknown  fifteenth- 
century  Florentine  painter,  is  apparently  his  work.  It  is  inscribed 
with  the  date  a.d.m.cccclxxiii. 


THE  GOLDSMITH  PAINTERS 
During  the  generation  which  preceded  the  activity  of 
Domenico  Ghirlandaio  (1449-1494)  (who  appears  in  the  official 
Catalogue  under  the  name  of  Grillandaio)  the  art  of  the  painter 
had  often  been  combined  with  that  of  the  architect  and  sculptor. 
In  time  the  influence  of  the  goldsmith  is  seen  in  the  inclination 
of  the  more  prosaic  painters,  among  whom  Ghirlandaio  holds  an 
important  place,  to  subordinate  the  pictorial  qualities  of  their 
compositions  to  the  gold-worker's  love  of  ornamental  detail  and 
fanciful  jewellery.  Paintings  carried  out  in  the  goldsmith's  shop 
thus  contained  in  the  action  of  the  figures,  the  treatment  of  the 
draperies,  and  the  fanciful  head-dresses,  imitations  of  silver  and 
bronze  work.  Domenico  Bigordi  owed  the  name  of  Ghirlandaio, 
by  which  he  is  now  generally  known,  to  his  having  been 
apprenticed  to  a  goldsmith  who  acquired  fame  as  a  maker  of 
the  jewelled  coronals  (ghirlande)  that  became  fashionable.  This 
pupil  of  Alessio  Baldovinetti,  who  was  a  craftsman  quite  as  much 


PLATE   III.— DOMENICO   GHIRLANDAIO 
(1449-1494) 

FLORENTINE  SCHOOL 

No.  1322.— PORTRAIT  OF  AN  OLD  MAN  AND  HIS  GRANDSON 
("  The  Bottle-Nosed  Man  ") 

(Portrait  d'lin  Vieillard  et  de  son  petit-fils) 

An  old   man,  wearing  a  red  robe  edged  with   fur,  looks  down  tenderly  at  liis  golden-liaircd   little 
grandson  who  lifts  up  his  face  to  be  kissed.     Through  an  open  casement  is  seen  a  landscape. 

Painted  in  tempera  on  panel. 

2  ft.  OJ  in.  X  1  ft.  6i  in.     (062  x  0-46.) 


THE  FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  33 

as  a  painter,  is  to-day  best  known  by  the  large  number  of  frescoes 
he  painted  in  Tuscany. 

In  Ghirlandaio's  Visitation  (No.  1321)  the  Virgin,  her  con- 
ventional robes  fastened  by  a  morse  such  as  this  goldsmith- 
painter  repeatedly  introduced  into  his  pictures,  stoops  to  greet 
St.  Elizabeth.  On  the  left  is  Mary  Cleophas,  and  from  the  right 
Mary  Salome  trips  lightly  on  to  the  scene.  As  always  in  a 
painting  of  this  subject,  the  principal  figures  are  silhouetted 
against  the  arch  in  the  background,  through  which  the  sky  is 
seen.  Characteristic  of  Ghirlandaio's  paintings  is  the  jewelled 
architecture  which  bears  the  date  1491,  three  years  previous  to 
his  death.  The  Catalogue  suggests  that  this  large  picture  was 
finished  by  either  Davide  or  Benedetto,  the  brothers  and 
assistants  of  Domenico,  but  it  is  possible  that  his  brother-in-law, 
Bastiano  Mainardi,  may  have  worked  on  it.  The  French,  having 
pointed  out  to  the  Duke  of  Tuscany  in  1815  that  Florence 
possessed  many  better  examples  of  this  painter's  art,  were  allowed 
to  retain  this  panel  picture,  which  had  been  brought  in  1806  from 
the  Church  of  S.  Maria  Maddalena  dei  Pazzi  at  Florence. 

The  delightful  Portrait  of  an  Old  Man  and  his  Grandson 
(No.  1322,  Plate  III.),  which  is  usually  known  as  The  Bottle-nosed 
Man,  is  an  admirable  study  from  life.  The  winsome  attitude  of 
the  little  boy  and  the  refined  expression  of  the  old  man  are  very 
pleasing.  It  is  an  incontrovertible,  but  perhaps  not  obvious,  fact 
that  mere  physiological  ugliness  can  in  the  hands  of  an  accom- 
plished artist  be  transformed  into  a  medium  of  beauty.  The  picture 
has  unfortunately  been  damaged,  notably  in  the  forehead  of  the  prin- 
cipal figure.  The  certainty  of  touch  and  the  delicacy  of  the  modelling 
indicate  that  this  panel  belongs  to  the  last  period  of  the  artist's 
activity,  when  he  also  executed  the  magnificent  Portrait  of  Giovanna 
degli  Albizzi,  now  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan. 

One  of  Domenico's  brothers,  Benedetto  Ghirlandaio  (1458-1497) 


34  THE  LOUVRE 

is  credited  with  a  Christ  on  the  Way  to  Calvary  (No.  1323).  His 
own  son,  Ridolfo  (1483-1561),  painted  the  Coronation  of  the  Virgin 
(No.  1324)  in  1503,  the  date  being  inscribed  on  the  panel. 
.  Mainardi  (fl.  1482-1513),  the  brother-in-law,  pupil,  and  imitator 
of  Domenico,  painted  many  pictures  which  usually  pass  under  the 
name  of  his  more  illustrious  relation.  This  pupil  has  painted  in 
the  tondo  of  the  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1367)  a  morse  somewhat 
similar  to  that  seen  in  the  Visitation  (No.  1321).  In  this  same  group 
of  artists  must  be  placed  a  nameless  assistant  of  Domenico.  His 
pictures  have  been  grouped  by  Mr.  Berenson,  who  calls  him  by 
the  descriptive  name  of  "Alunno  di  Domenico,"  and  tentatively 
identifies  him  with  Bartolommeo  di  Giovanni,  of  whom  very  little 
is  known.  Alunno  di  Domenico  is  thus  credited  with  having 
executed  the  companion  pictures  (No.  1416a  and  No.  1416b)  of 
the  Nuptials  of  Thetis  and  Peleus,  a  pagan  subject  which  suggests 
the  advent  of  the  decadence  in  Florentine  art.  These  two  panels 
are  officially  catalogued  under  the  name  of  Piero  di  Cosimo. 


LEONARDO  DA  VINCI 

We  now  have  to  pass  from  the  mediocre  artists  who  worked 
in  the  school  of  Domenico  Ghirlandaio  to  that  great  master, 
Leonardo  da  Vinci  (1452-1519),  whose  work  in  the  oil  medium 
can  nowhere  be  studied  so  profitably  as  in  the  Louvre.  This 
many-sided  genius  was  the  natural  and  first-born  son  of  a  country 
notary,  and  became  a  pupil  of  the  sculptor-painter,  Andrea  del 
Verrocchio,  in  whose  workshop  he  met  Botticelli,  Lorenzo  di  Credi, 
and  many  less  distinguished  Florentine  painters.  His  interests  and 
occupations  were  so  various  that  a  detailed  study  of  his  life-work 
reveals  him  as  scientist,  philosopher,  architect,  sculptor,  military 
engineer,  mathematician,  botanist,  and  musician.  The  Annunciation 
(catalogued  as  No.    1602a   and  labelled  No.   1265),  which  in  the 


THE  FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  35 

official  Catalogue  is  now  only  attributed  to  him  after  having 
long  passed  under  the  name  of  Lorenzo  di  Credi,  is  doubtless 
an  early  work  of  about  1472  by  Leonardo.  Some  ten  years 
later  Leonardo  entered  the  service  of  Lodovico  Sforza,  Duke  of 
Milan,  in  which  city  he  shortly  afterwards  painted  the  Virgin 
of  the  Rocks  (No.  1599).  This  fine  painting — whose  virtues  are 
concealed  under  a  thick  coat  of  chilled  varnish — is  reputed  to 
have  been  in  the  collection  of  Fran9ois  i.,  although  it  has  no 
continuous  pedigree  earlier  than  the  year  1625,  when  it  was  in 
the  royal  collection  at  Fontainebleau.  It  is  very  similar  to  the 
painting  of  the  same  subject  which  the  National  Gallery  (No. 
1093)  purchased  in  1880  for  £9000.  The  points  of  difference 
between  the  two  versions  are  numerous  but  trifling.  The  nimbi 
in  the  National  Gallery  picture  were  added  much  later  and  are 
not  found  in  the  Louvre  panel,  which  in  the  greater  perfection 
of  detail,  in  the  treatment  of  the  foreground  and  the  brushwork, 
prove  it  to  be  an  earlier  and  more  authentic  work.  A  careful 
examination  of  the  documents  which  came  to  light  in  the  year 
1893  shows  that  a  dispute  arose  as  to  the  price  to  be  paid  by 
the  Brotherhood  of  the  Conception  of  Milan  for  the  picture  now 
in  the  Louvre,  and  that  Ambrogio  da  Predis  and  Leonardo  da 
Vinci  petitioned  the  Duke  of  Milan  to  intervene.  It  would  seem 
that  the  National  Gallery  picture  was  executed  in  great  part 
by  Ambrogio,  who  worked  under  the  supervision  of  the  great 
Florentine  master,  in  1494,  about  twelve  years  later  than  the 
version  in  this  collection.  Leonardo's  greatest  contribution  to 
Florentine  art  consisted  in  his  practice  of  the  science  of  chiaroscuro, 
the  laws  of  which  he  was  the  first  to  fully  investigate. 

Having  begun  his  celebrated  "  Treatise  on  Painting  "  and  recom- 
menced his  work  on  the  colossal  equestrian  statue  of  Francesco 
Sforza,  which  at  the  moment  of  its  destruction  by  the  French 
bowmen  in  1500  had  earned  him  lasting  fame  as  a  sculptor,  Leonardo 


36  THE  LOUVRE 

undertook  his  chef  d'ceume,  The  Last  Supper,  at  Milan.  Executed  in 
tempera  on  a  badly  prepared  stucco  ground,  the  painting  unfortu- 
nately soon  began  to  perish,  and  although  it  was  restored  in  1908 
with  great  success  by  Professor  Cavenaghi,  only  a  faint  idea  of  its 
pristine  beauty  remains.  The  Louvre  possesses  a  contemporary  copy 
(No.  1603a)  of  this  fresco  by  Marco  d'Oggiono,  which  was  com- 
missioned by  the  Constable  de  Montmorency  and  long  hung  in  the 
Chateau  d'Ecouen.  A  similar  copy  of  Leonardo's  Last  Supper  was 
purchased  from  a  grocer  in  Milan  in  1793  for  £600,  and  is  now  in  the 
Royal  Academy,  London. 

MONA  LISA 

When  Lodovico  Sforza  was  conquered  by  the  French  and  his 
city  occupied  by  them,  Leonardo  set  out  for  Mantua  and  Florence, 
It  may  have  been  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  1500  that  he  began  to 
work  on  the  Portrait  of  Mona  Lisa  (No.  1601,  Plate  IV.)  which 
officially  passes  under  the  title  of  La  Joconde.  Vasari  says  that 
Leonardo  worked  on  this  picture  for  four  years,  and  finally  left  it 
unfinished.  The  words  of  Vasari  must  not  be  taken  too  literally. 
We  know,  in  fact,  that  Leonardo  did  not  work  in  Florence  for  four 
consecutive  years  during  the  period  to  which  the  Louvre's  treasured 
picture  belongs,  but  in  1502  visited  Orvieto,  Poesaro,  and  Rimini, 
acting  as  engineer  to  Cesare  Borgia.  He  probably  began  it  in  1500, 
resumed  work  on  it  in  1503,  and  did  not  complete  it  until  the  follow- 
ing year.  This  would  make  Vasari's  statement  substantially  correct. 
The  subject  of  this  world-famous  portrait  was  Lisa  di  Anton  Maria 
di  Noldo  Gherardini,  the  third  wife  of  Francesco  di  Bartolommeo  de 
Zenobi  del  Giocondo,  whom  she  married  in  1495.  It  is  from  the 
surname  of  her  husband  that  she  derives  the  name  of  "La  Joconde" 
by  which  her  portrait  is  now  officially  known.  (The  title  has 
nothing  to  do  with  any  reference  to  her  jocund  outlook  on  life.) 
A   French   critic    has   shown   that    Mona   Lisa's   child  died  while 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL  37 

this  portrait  was  being  painted.  "Whoever  shall  desire  to  see 
how  far  Art  can  imitate  Nature,"  says  Vasari,  "may  do  so  to 
perfection  in  this  head,  wherein  every  peculiarity  that  could  be 
depicted  by  the  utmost  subtlety  of  the  pencil  has  been  faithfully 
reproduced.  The  eyes  have  the  lustrous  brightness  and  moisture 
which  is  seen  in  life,  and  around  them  are  those  pale,  red,  and  slightly 
livid  circles  also  proper  to  Nature.  The  nose,  with  its  beautiful  and 
delicately  roseate  nostrils,  might  be  easily  believed  to  be  alive  ;  the 
mouth,  admirable  in  its  outline,  has  the  lips  uniting  the  rose  tints  of 
their  colour  with  those  of  the  face,  in  the  utmost  perfection,  and  the 
carnation  of  the  cheek  does  not  appear  to  be  painted,  but  truly  flesh 
and  blood."  This  eulogistic  criticism  may  seem  to-day  to  be  some- 
what excessive,  but  allowance  must  be  made  ior  the  drastic 
restorations  to  which  the  panel  has  been  subjected  from  time  to 
•  time.  As  early  as  1625  it  is  recorded  to  have  been  in  a  bad  condition. 
Tradition  says  that  it  was  purchased  by  rran9ois  i.  for  4000  ectis  d'or, 
equal  to-day  to  about  £1800,  and  hung  in  the  Cabinet  dore  at 
Fontainebleau.  Cassiano  del  Pozzo  has  left  it  on  record  that  the 
Duke  of  Buckingham,  in  1625,  when  he  was  sent  to  escort  Henrietta 
Maria  to  England  as  the  bride  of  Charles  i.,  expressed  the  hope  that 
he  might  be  permitted  to  take  the  picture  back  with  him  as  a 
present  from  Henri  iv.  of  France,  who  was  with  difficulty  prevented 
by  his  courtiers  from  acting  on  the  suggestion.  The  picture  was  at 
Versailles  during  the  reign  of  Louis  xiv.,  and  appeared  in  the  Louvre 
for  the  first  time  at  the  Revolution.  In  recent  years  it  has  been 
placed  in  an  excellent  frame  of  the  period. 

By  May  1506  Leonardo  had  returned  to  Milan,  and  there  entered 
the  service  of  the  French  king.  About  1508-12  he  seems  to 
have  worked  upon  the  Madonna,  Infant  Christ,  and  St.  Anne  (No. 
1598),  which  appears  to  have  been  in  part  executed  by  an  assistant, 
possibly  Salaino.  This  large  panel  was  purchased  by  Cardinal 
Richelieu  in  1629.^   A  sketch  by  Leonardo  for  part  of  this  picture 


38  THE  LOUVRE 

is  in  the  Louvre  (Drawing  No.  391) ;  other  sketches  are  in  the 
Venice  Academy  and  in  the  Royal  Library,  Windsor.  The  name 
of  Andrea  Salaino  (fl.  1495-1515)  has  been  put  forward  as  the 
painter  of  the  mysterious  picture  entitled  JSL  John  the  Baptist 
(No.  1597),  which  was  evidently  painted  from  a  female  model. 
It  is  difficult  to  accept  the  view  put  forward  by  Th^ophile 
Gautier  that  in  this  androgynous  figure  we  have  "another 
portrait  of  La  Joconde,  more  mysterious,  more  strange,  freed  from 
material  likeness,  and  showing  the  soul  through  the  veil  of  the 
body."  The  picture  passed  into  the  collection  of  Charles  i.  from 
Louis  XIII.  in  exchange  for  Holbein's  Portrait  of  Brasmus  (No.  2715, 
Plate  XXIV.)  and  a  now  unrecognisable  Holy  Family  by  Titian,  but 
on  the  dispersal  of  the  English  king's  collection  was  purchased  for 
£140  by  Jabach,  from  whom  it  ultimately  passed  to  Louis  xrv.  It  is 
a  Milanese  production,  but  not,  in  all  probability,  from  the  hand  of 
Leonardo  himself,  although  officially  so  regarded.  The  same  criticism 
applies  to  the  so-called  Fmirait  of  Lucrezia  Crivelli  (No.  1600). 
Lucrezia  was  a  lady-in-waiting  to  Beatrice  d'Este,  and  in  1496 
Lodovico  Sforza  became  enamoured  of  her,  a  historical  event  which 
has  no  bearing  on  the  identity  of  this  portrait  or  on  its  official, 
although  uncertain,  claim  to  strict  authenticity.  It  has  also  been 
described  under  the  misleading  title  of  La  Belle  Ferronniere,  ap- 
parently in  reference  to  the  wife  of  one  Ferron,  a  blacksmith,  who 
had  according  to  tradition  been  the  mistress  of  Fran9ois  i.,  but  was 
already  dead  when  Leonardo  passed  into  the  service  of  that  king  and 
came  to  France  in  1516.  The  picture's  pedigree  cannot  be  traced 
further  back  than  1645,  and  the  theories  put  forward  in  connection 
with  it  are  largely  conjectural.  It  is,  however,  a  Milanese  production 
of  the  school  of  Leonardo.  The  Profile  Portrait  of  a  Woman  (No. 
1605)  was  also  a  century  ago  loosely  described  as  the  Portrait  of  La 
Belle  Ferronniere  ;  it  is  catalogued  as  a  school  picture,  but  is  regarded 
by  Mr.  Berenson  as  the  work  of  Bernardino  de'  Conti.     The  same 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL  39 

critic  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  Bacchus  (No.  1602)  is  *'  based  no  doubt 
on  a  drawing  by  Leonardo,"  but  the  Catalogue  accepts  it  unhesi- 
tatingly. It  seems  to  have  been  originally  intended  as  a  St.  John 
the  Baptist  with  a  staff,  and  subsequently  altered  into  a  Bacchus 
with  a  thyrsus.  The  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1603a),  an  attributed 
work,  is  only  an  old  Flemish  copy  of  a  slightly  warped  panel  picture 
of  the  Madonna  with  the  Carnation  (No.  1040a)  at  Munich.  The 
Madonna  of  the  Scales  (No.  1604),  which  still  passes  as  a  school 
picture,  has  long  been  regarded  by  responsible  critics  as  being  by 
Cesare  da  Sesto,  a  pupil  of  Leonardo.  The  Holy  Family  (No.  1606), 
which  was  formerly  in  the  His  de  la  Salle  collection,  is  not  now 
exhibited. 

In  1516,  within  three  years  of  his  death,  the  great  Florentine 
left  Italy  for  the  Manor  House  of  Cloux,  near  Amboise,  in  Touraine, 
to  enter  the  service  of  the  French  king.  His  right  hand  was 
paralysed — he  was  left-handed  and  wrote  from  right  to  left — and 
his  health  was  failing  fast.  The  end  of  that  great  life  came  on 
May  2,  1519,  when  every  one  lamented  the  loss  of  a  man  and  a 
painter  "whose  like  Nature  cannot  produce  a  second  time." 

The  Madonna  and  CJiild,  St.  Julian,  and  St.  Nicholas  (No.  1263) 
is  perhaps  the  masterpiece  of  Lorenzo  di  Credi  (1456  ?-1537),  who 
was  another  pupil  of  Verrocchio.  He  also  painted  the  Christ 
appearing  to  Mary  Magdalene  (No.  1264).  The  Annunciation  (No. 
1602a),  which  was  formerly  assigned  to  Lorenzo  in  the  Catalogue 
(No.  1265),  is,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  an  early  work  by 
Leonardo  da  Vinci. 

BOTTICELLI 

The  ever-increasing  regard  in  which  pictures  by  Botticelli 
(1444-1510)  are  held  is  traceable  to  the  fact  that  they  show  the 
mystic  spirit  of  mediaeval  times  mingled  with  a  fantasy  that  is 
almost  modern.     He  was  a  pupil  of  Fra  Filippo  Lippi,  and  studied 


40  THE  LOUVRE 

the  more  scientific  methods  which  Antonio  Pollaiuolo  adopted  in 
his  treatment  of  the  human  figure.  Painting  in  an  age  when 
poets  penned  canzones  to  many  mistresses,  and  lovelorn  gallants 
spoke  in  impassioned  verse  of  the  great  platonic  emotions  which 
stirred  them  to  the  depth  of  their  love-tormented  souls,  Botticelli 
stands  forward  as  the  representative  of  the  later  years  of  the 
Medicean  age.  The  mystic  tendency  of  his  genius,  his  poetic 
imagination,  his  highly  developed  sense  of  linear  design,  and  the 
charm  of  his  colour  impart  to  his  works  a  delicacy  and  refinement 
which  distinguish  them  from  the  works  of  his  contemporaries, 
pupils,  and  imitators.  His  fame  had  long  been  in  eclipse  when 
half  a  century  ago  Ruskin  rescued  it  firom  oblivion.  Botticelli, 
who  now  has  become  the  object  of  a  cult  at  the  hands  of  fervent 
enthusiasts,  is,  however,  not  to  be  ranked  as  a  supreme  master. 
He  cannot  be  placed  on  the  same  plane  as  Leonardo,  Michelangelo,, 
Raphael,  and  Giorgione. 

Botticelli  is  inadequately  represented  at  the  Louvre,  which  pos- 
sesses only  two  authentic  paintings  from  his  hand.  Neither  of  these 
is  on  panel  or  canvas,  but  in  fresco.  He  was  commissioned  in  1486, 
the  year  following  his  Mars  and  Vemts  in  the  National  Gallery 
(No.  915),  to  execute  two  wall  paintings  (No.  1297,  Plate  V.,  and 
No.  1298)  in  the  hall  on  the  piano  nobile  of  the  Villa  Lemmi,  at 
Chiasso  Macerelli,  between  Fiesole  and  Florence,  to  commemorate 
the  marriage  of  Lorenzo  Tornabuoni  and  Giovanna  degli  Albizzi. 
These  exquisite,  but  much  injured,  frescoes  were  covered  over  with 
whitewash  until  1873,  and  in  1882  they  were  removed  fi-om  the  wall 
and  sold  to  the  Louvre  for  £1860.  In  the  first  (No.  1298)  of  the 
series  Lorenzo  Tornabuoni,  as  Bridegroom,  is  admitted  into  the 
Circle  of  the  Liberal  Arts,  who  give  a  gracious  welcome  to  this 
friend  of  all  the  Muses.  This  fresco,  curiously  enough,  is  in  the 
oflficial  Catalogue  regarded  as  only  a  school  picture.  The  second  of 
these  wonderful  creations  depicts  Giovanna  Tornabiumi  and  the  Three 


PLATE   v.— BOTTICELLI 
(1444-1510) 

FLORENTINE  SCHOOL 

No.  1297.— GIOV ANNA  DEGLI  ALBIZZI  AND  THE  THREE  GRACES 
(Giovanna  Albizzi  et  les  Trois  Graces  ou  les  Vertus) 

To  the  right  Giovanna,  a  young  woman  in  a  red-brown  dress,  wearing  a  white  veil  on  her  golden  hair 
and  a  necklace  of  pearls  round  her  neck,  advances  towards  four  lovely  maidens  clad  in  delicately-tinted 
robes.  She  holds  in  her  outstretched  hands  a  white  linen  cloth  into  which  the  four  maidens  throw 
flowers  symbolic  of  the  Virtues. 

Fresco  painting  detached  from  the  wall. 

7  ft.  3  in.  X  9  ft.  4  in.     (2-12  x  2'84.) 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL  41 

Gr(mes  (No.  1297,  Plate  V.).  We  see  the  Three  Graces  bringing 
to  Giovanna  their  gifts  of  Chastity,  Beauty,  and  Love,  depicted 
symbolically  as  flowers.  A  tragic  fate  awaited  the  loving  pair,  as 
Giovanna  died  within  a  few  years  in  childbirth,  while  Lorenzo 
was  condemned  to  death  in  1497  for  conspiracy. 

The  Madonna  and  Child  and  St.  John  (No.  1296),  which  was 
formerly  put  forward  by  one  critic  as  a  "  work  of  Botticelli's  early 
years,  but  showing  collaboration,"  and  which  is  still  catalogued 
as  being  by  the  master  himself,  is  now  generally  recognised  as  a 
school  picture  only.  The  background  is  formed  by  cypresses  and 
rosebushes.  The  circular  panel  (No.  1295),  which  is  still  credited 
officially  to  Sandro,  is  only  a  copy  of  the  Madonna  of  the  Ma^nificai 
now  in  the  Uffi2d  at  Florence  (No.  1267  Bis). 

Authenticity  cannot  be  claimed  for  the  Fragment  of  a  Predella 
(No.  1300),  containing  the  figures  of  St.  Peter  Martyr,  the  Virgin, 
St.  Elizabeth,  Christ  and  the  Magdalene,  David,  St.  Francis,  St. 
Dominic,  and  St.  John  the  Baptist.  The  Scene  from  the  History  of 
Virginia  (No.  1662a  or  No.  1662  Bis),  a  cassone  front,  and  the 
Portrait  of  a  Young  Man  (No.  1663),  which  was  purchased  in 
1882  for  £600,  are  catalogued  as  being  by  an  unknown  Florentine 
painter.  These  have,  however,  been  included  by  Mr.  Berenson 
among  the  numerous  pictures  painted  by  the  nameless  imitator 
of  Botticelli,  whom  the  eminent  critic  has  identified  under  the 
significant  name  of  "  Amico  di  Sandro,"  i.e.  "  The  friend  of  Sandro 
Botticelli."  The  Madonna  and  Child  adored  hy  Angels  (No.  1300a), 
bequeathed  by  the  Baroness  Nathaniel  de  Rothschild,  is  regarded 
by  the  same  high  authority  as  a  copy  by  Jacopo  del  Sellaio  (1442  ?- 
1493),  a  pupil  of  Fra  Filippo  Lippi  and  an  imitator  of  Botticelli, 
of  a  lost  picture  by  "Amico  di  Sandro."  The  unbeautiful  Venus 
(No.  1299)  from  the  Cardinal  Fesch  and  Campana  collections 
(which  is  very  similar  to  a  picture  (No.  916)  in  the  National  Gallery), 
the  Esther  crowned  hy  Ahcmterm  (No.   1643a),  and  the  St.  Jerome 

6 


42  THE  LOUVRE 

(No.  1658),  must  also  be  included  among  the  mediocre  works  of 
Sellaio.  In  the  same  group  of  Florentine  painters  is  placed 
Francesco  Botticini  (1446-1497),  who  worked  under  and  was 
influenced  by  Cosimo  Rosselli  (1437  ?-1507) ;  the  Virgin  in  Glory 
between  the  Magdalene  and  St.  Bernard  (No.  1482)  is  by  Botticini 
although  placed  under  the  name  of  Rosselli  in  the  Catalogue. 
Many  pictures  by  Botticini  pass  in  public  galleries  under  the 
more  illustrious  name  of  Botticelli. 

From  Cosimo  Rosselli  we  naturally  pass  to  his  pupil  Piero  di 
Cosimo  (1462-1521),  who  derived  great  pleasure  from  the  painting 
of  such  scenes  from  classic  fable  as  enabled  him  to  depict  grotesque 
monsters,  strange  animals,  and  fantastic  costume.  At  first  sight  it 
might  be  assumed  that  the  Nuptials  of  Thetis  and  Peleus  (No.  1416a. 
and  No.  1416b)  were  from  his  brush  ;  but  although  these  two  panels 
pass  under  his  name  in  the  Catalogue,  they  are,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  "Alunno  di  Domenico."  Piero  is  represented  in  the  Louvre 
exclusively  by  religious  pictures,  the  most  imposing  of  which  is  the 
Coronation  of  the  Virgin,  with  St.  Jerome,  St.  Francis,  St.  Bonaventura, 
and  St.  Louis  of  Toulmise  (No.  1416).  An  unpleasing  Madonna 
(No.  1662)  has  long  ago  been  assigned  to  Piero  di  Cosimo,  who  is 
also  the  author  of  a  St.  John  the  Baptist  as  a  Child  (No.  1274),  which 
is  labelled  with  the  name  of  Uccello.  The  two  last  pictures  hang  in 
the  Long  Gallery  on  either  side  of  the  door  leading  into  Room  VII. 

The  authorities  catalogue  as  the  work  of  Raffaelino  del  Garbo 
(1466-1524)  the  large  Coronation  of  the  Virgin,  with  St.  Benedict, 
St.  Salvi,  St.  John  Gualherto,  and  St.  Bernard  degli  Uberti  (No.  1303), 
which  is  in  reality  the  centre  part  of  a  large  altarpiece  by  Raffaelle 
dei  Carli  (1470-1526  ?),  who  worked  with  Garbo  and  his  group. 

The  great  French  Museum  does  not  possess  one  of  the  only 
three  easel  paintings  which  are  now  assigned  by  the  safest  critics 
to  Michelangelo  (1475-1564),  who  as  a  painter  is  best  known 
for    his  fresco  paintings    in    Rome.     This  collection   is,   however, 


THE  FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  43 

fortunate  enough  to  own  the  two  sculptures  of  the  Slaves,  repre- 
sented as  fettered  and  overcome  by  grief  at  the  death  of  Pope 
Julius  II.,  for  whose  tomb  they  were  intended. 


ALBERTINELLI 

By  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  Florence  had  become 
the  aesthetic  capital  of  Italy,  and  painters  innumerable  were 
plying  their  trade  within  her  walls.  As  they  worked  in  close 
-contact  and  unconsciously  reflected  the  influences  which  beset 
them  on  every  side,  it  becomes  increasingly  difficult  to  assign 
to  any  given  artist  the  execution  of  certain  works.  The  task 
becomes  even  more  difficult,  and  indeed  thankless,  when  one  is 
brought  face  to  face  with  such  a  composite  picture  as  the  Madonna 
end  Child,  St.  Jerome  and  St.  ZeTiohius  (No.  1114),  which  is  officially 
ascribed  to  Albertinelli  (1474-1515).  The  leading  authority  on 
Italian  art  has  given  it  as  his  opinion  that  this  large  canvas, 
which  is  inscribed : 

MARIOCTI    DEBERTINELLIS    OPUS 
A.    C.    &.    DVI, 

was  "begun  by  Filippino  Lippi,  who  laid  in  the  St.  Jerome, 
while  Albertinelli  was  assisted  by  Bugiardini  in  the  execution 
of  the  rest,  especially  in  the  child  and  landscape."  Albertinelli 
was  the  intimate  friend  of  Fra  Bartolommeo,  whose  partner  he 
eventually  became.  When  it  is  remembered  that  Albertinelli 
worked  in  the  studio  of  Cosimo  Rosselli  with  Piero  di  Cosimo, 
who  was  the  master  of  Fra  Bartolommeo  and  had  some  influence 
on  Filippino  Lippi,  it  will  be  recognised  that  it  is  only  the  dis- 
cerning critic  of  wide  experience  and  consummate  flair  that  can 
detect  the  hand  of  various  painters  in  a  composite  picture  of  this 
kind,  as  Mr.  Berenson  has  done. 


44  THE  LOUVRE 

The  Christ  appearing  to  the  Magdalene  (No.  1115),  which  passes 
officially  as  the  work  of  Albertinelli,  was  most  probably  an  early 
picture  by  Fra  Bartolommeo  (1472-1517),  who,  having  like 
Botticelli  come  under  the  spell  of  Savonarola,  took  the  vows  of 
a  Dominican  in  July  1500,  and  temporarily  relinquished  the 
professional  activity  of  a  painter.  The  Frate  took  up  his  brush 
again  and,  while  working  between  1509  and  1512  as  the  partner 
of  Albertinelli,  achieved  the  large  and  imposing  Holy  Family, 
with  St.  Peter,  St.  Vincent,  St.  Stephen,  and  St.  Catherine  of  Siena 
on  the  left,  and  St.  Dominic,  St.  Francis,  and  St.  Bartholomew  on 
the  right  (No  1154).  It  is  signed  on  the  base  of  the  throne, 
in  characteristic  manner: 

ORATE   PRO   PICTORB 

MDXI 

BARTHOLOME    FLOREN. 

OR.    PRAE. 

Four  years  later  he  also  completed  his  Annunciation  (Na 
1153),  which  is  inscribed : 

F.  Barf.  Floren'  or^  pre. 
1515. 

The  introduction  of  St.  Paul,  St.  John  the  Baptist,  and  St. 
Margaret  on  the  left,  and  St.  Mary  Magdalene  and  St.  Francis 
on  the  right,  tends  to  destroy  the  full  significance  of  the  prin- 
cipal theme.  Fra  Bartolommeo's  pictures  helped  to  emancipate 
Raphael  from  the  mannerisms  he  had  acquired  from  Perugino ; 
they  mark  a  late  period  in  the  Renaissance  art  of  Florence.  He 
lived  until  1517,  when  Florentine  painting  was  on  the  verge  of  a 
fast  approaching  decadence. 

Equally  influential  in  the  art  of  this  period  was  Filippino 
Lippi    (1457-1504),    whose    tendency    to    over-ornamentation    be- 


THE  FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  45 

came  more  advanced  in  his  later  years.  In  his  fascinating 
pictures  spiritual  significance  is  at  times  sacrificed  to  a  love  of 
mere  display,  the  baroque  flutterings  of  his  draperies  and  the  air 
of  affectation  that  he  sometimes  imparted  to  his  figures.  The 
Louvre  exhibits  no  example  of  the  art  of  Filippino  which  in  its 
latest  phase  shows  the  early,  although  unmistakable,  signs  of 
decline. 

ANDREA  DEL   SARTO 

The  highly  technical  skill  and  mellow  colouring  of  Andrea 
del  Sarto  (1486-1531)  have  long  been  known  in  France,  where 
he  was  invited  by  Fran9ois  i.  For  that  monarch  he  executed  the 
Charity  (No.  1514),  which,  having  been  transferred  from  panel 
to  canvas  by  Picault  in  1750  when  the  process  was  little  under- 
stood, suffered  accordingly.  In  its  present  state  we  can  get 
little  idea  of  the  former  brilliance  of  the  picture  which  secured 
to  the  "faultily  faultless  painter"  in  1518 — the  year  he  arrived 
in  France — a  very  considerable  income.     It  is  inscribed : 

ANDREAS    SARTUS 

FLORENTINUS    ME   PINXIT 

MDXVIII. 

A  Holy  Family  (No  1515),  by  the  same  facile  painter,  has 
been  said  by  some  to  portray  in  the  features  of  the  Virgin  those 
of  his  own  infamous  wife  Lucrezia  del  Fede.  It  has  been  enlarged, 
and  has  suffered  in  the  operation.  Less  authentic  are  the  Holy 
Family  (No.  1516),  which  is  said  to  bear  the  inscription : 

ANDREA   DEL   SARTO    FLORENTINO    FACIEBAT 

followed  by  a  monogram,  and  a  lunette  of  the  Annunciation  (No. 
1517).  The  Portrait  of  Andrea  Fausti,  which  is  given  in  the 
Catalogue  under  the  name  of  Sarto,  and  described  as  being  the 


46  THE  LOUVRE 

work  of  a  pupil,  is  held  by  some  critics  to  have  been  painted  by 
Franciabigio  (1482-1525),  who  came  under  the  influence  of  Andrea. 

The  insignificant  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man  (No.  1506),  which 
since  1709  has  passed  under  the  quite  fictitious  title  of  the 
Portrait  of  Raphael,  and  is  indeed  still  catalogued  under  his  name, 
is  an  ill  drawn  and  badly  coloured  production.  It  seems  to  issue 
from  the  influences  we  have  just  outlined.  Morelli  regarded  it 
as  the  work  of  Bacchiacca  (1494-1557),  who  churned  up  reminis- 
cences of  Andrea  del  Sarto,  Franciabigio,  and  Perugino.  Mr. 
Berenson  has  tentatively  assigned  it  to  SogUani,  who  imitated 
Albertinelli  and  many  other  Florentines. 

An  unattributed  Florentine  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man  (No. 
1644),  which  has  been  enlarged  about  three  inches  all  round,  had 
at  one  time  or  another  been  ascribed  without  much  discrimination 
to  Raphael,  Giorgione,  Sebastiano  del  Piombo,  Francesco  Francia, 
Ridolfo  Ghirlandaio,  and  Franciabigio !  It  is  apparently  from 
the  hand  of  Giuliano  Bugiardini  (1475-1554),  a  mediocre  artist 
who  endeavoured  to  appropriate  all  the  conflicting  influences  that 
he  came  under.  It  has  long  been  hung  to  the  left  of  Raphael's 
La  Belle  Jardiniere. 

A  Florentine  painter  of  no  great  accomplishment  or  originality 
in  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  Jacopo  da  Pontormo 
(1494-1557),  who  painted  the  Portrait  of  an  Engraver  of  Precious 
Stones  (No.  1241)  and  the  large  Holy  Family  (No.  1240).  The 
Visitation  (No.  1242)  is  a  copy  by  a  pupil  of  his  fresco  in  the 
Annunziata,  Florence.  By  another  pupil,  Agnolo  Bronzino  (1502- 
1572),  are  the  Christ  and  the  Magdalene  (No.  1183),  not  now 
exhibited,  and  the  Portrait  of  a  Sculptor  (No.  1184) ;  the  Holy 
Family  (No.  1183a  or  No.  1183b)  which  was  formerly  in  the 
Vandeuil  collection  is  only  a  copy.  Giovanni  Battista  Rosso  (1496- 
1541),  who  is  called  Rosso  Fiorentino  to  distinguish  him  from 
Francesco    Rosso    (II    Salviati),    came    to    work    at    the    French 


THE  FLORENTINE   SCHOOL  47 

Court  about  1530 ;  he  painted  a  Pieta  (No.  1485),  and  a  Challenge 
of  the  Pierides  (No.  1486),  which  are  hung  among  the  French 
pictures.  The  Portrait  of  a  Musician  (No.  1608),  by  Paolo 
Zacchia ;  the  Madonna,  JSt.  John  and  St.  Stephen  (No.  1133),  by- 
Michelangelo  Anselmi ;  the  David  overcoming  Goliath  (No,  1462), 
a  repulsive  production  painted  by  Daniele  da  Volterra  (Ricciarelli) 
on  both  sides  of  a  large  piece  of  slate ;  a  Plight  into  Egypt  (No. 
1209),  by  Lodovico  Cardi  (II  Cigoli),  and  Matteo  Rosselli's  Triumph 
of  David  (No.  1483),  are  unworthy  of  comment.  They  show 
unmistakably  the  characteristics  of  the  Decadence  in  full 
operation. 

I 


THE  LATER  SIENESE  SCHOOL 

WE   have  already   sketched  the  earliest  period  of  the  art  of 
Siena,    and    seen   how    for  a    brief   space    of   time    it 
dominated  that  of  Tuscany.     The  greater  precision  of 
the   Florentine  technique,   and    the   wider  mental    outlook  of  its 
artists    in    the    fifteenth  century,   placed    it    in    the   van    before 
long. 

Sano  di  Pietro  (1406-1481),  a  pupil  of  Sassetta,  undoubtedly 
painted  the  five  small  characteristic  panels  (No.  1128-32),  which 
illustrate  scenes  from  the  Life  of  St.  Jerome,  and  at  one  time  formed 
the  predella  of  a  large  altarpiece.  St.  Jerome,  with  others  of 
his  order  who  run  away,  kneels  under  a  portico  of  the  monastery 
he  founded  at  Bethlehem,  and  is  extracting  a  thorn  from  the 
lion's  paw.  According  to  the  legend,  the  lion  was  afterwards 
placed  in  charge  of  an  ass  which  the  monks  employed  to  carry 
wood ;  we  see  here  that  while  the  lion  was  asleep  in  the  heat 
of  the  day  under  a  clump  of  trees,  the  ass  was  stolen  by  merchants. 
St.  Jerome  naturally  believed  that  the  ass  had  not  been  carried 
off  by  a  passing  caravan,  but  eaten  by  the  lion,  who  subsequently 
saw  his  old  friend  the  ass  in  the  possession  of  the  same  mer- 
chants that  chanced  to  pass  that  way  again.  The  lion  is  here 
seen  (No.  1130)  in  the  act  of  compelling,  one  might  almost 
say  pushing,  the  ass  and  the  other  beasts  of  burden  laden 
with  provisions  back  into  the  monastery,  while  the  merchants  flee 
away  in  terror. 

The  Louvre  does  not  contain  any  work  by  Vecchietta  (1412- 
1480),  who  was  architect  as  well  as  painter.     A  Birth  of  the  Virgin 

7  49 


50  THE  LOUVRE 

(No.  1660),  catalogued  as  being  by  an  unknown  Florentine  artist, 
is  most  probably  from  the  hand  of  Matteo  di  Giovanni  (1435  ?-1495), 
who  was  most  likely  at  one  time  a  pupil  of  Vecchietta.  Another 
of  the  latter's  pupils,  Francesco  di  Giorgio  (1439-1502),  perhaps 
executed  the  panel  of  the  Rape  of  Europa  (No.  1640a  or  No.  1640  6*5), 
which  the  cataloguer  relegates  to  the  lengthy  list  of  unattributed 
Florentine  works. 

From  these  influences  spring  Girolamo  di  Benvenuto  (1470- 
1524),  whose  Judgment  of  Paris  (No.  1668)  passes  in  the  Catalogue 
as  a  late  fifteenth  century  Bolognese  picture.  Bernardino  Fungai 
(1460-1516),  who  trod  in  the  steps  of  Giovanni  di  Paolo,  Francesco 
di  Giorgio,  and  the  Umbrian  artist  Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo,  and  yet 
evinced  no  real  signs  of  development  from  within,  is  unrepresented 
in  this  collection. 

This  rapid  survey  of  the  School  of  Siena  shows  that  it  is 
not  well  exemplified  in  the  Louvre.  The  third-rate  painters, 
Pacchiarotto  (1474-1540)  and  Beccafumi  (1486-1551),  wiU  not 
detain  us.  Another  accomplished  late  Sienese  eclectic,  Girolamo 
del  Pacchia  (1477-1535?),  has  been  credited  with  a  Crucifixion 
(No.  1642),  but  not  by  the  official  cataloguer.  Sodoma  (1477- 
1551)  also  worked  in  Siena.  Towards  the  year  1501  other  artists 
of  the  various  schools  of  Central  Italy,  including  Pinturicchio, 
Signorelli,  and  Perugino,  visited  the  city,  their  advent  bringing 
about  an  artistic  revolution.  Before  long  the  rehgious  fervour, 
the  delicate  ornamentation,  the  gesso-embellishment,  the  drawing 
in  the  flat,  and  the  miniature-like  delicacy  of  an  earlier  age  became 
extinct.  The  artistic  glory  of  Siena  was  dimmed,  and  rapidly 
passed  into  a  period  of  decadence. 

Among  the  last  Sienese  artists  of  any  distinction  were 
Baldassare  Peruzzi  (1481-1536),  an  architect  and  painter,  and 
Matteo  Balducci  (fl.  1509-1553),  to  whom  we  may  perhaps  ascribe 
the  Jibdgmerd  of  Solomon  (No.  1571)  and  the  Judgment  of  Daniel 


THE  LATER  SIENESE  SCHOOL  51 

(No.  1572).  In  any  case  these  pictures  belong  to  the  Umbro- 
Sienese  period  of  Central  Italian  art ;  they  are  oflSicially  regarded 
as  being  by  Perugino  himself.  When  all  originality  had  passed 
out  of  Sienese  painting,  Francesco  Vanni  (1563  ?-l  609)  produced 
his  Repose  on  the  Flight  into  Egypt  (No.  1561)  and  the  Martyrdom 
of  St.  Irene  (No.  1562). 


THE  UMBRIAN  SCHOOL 

AT  the  head  of  the  various  local  centres  of  painting  which 
form  the  school  of  Umbria  we  must  place  Alegretto  Nuzi 
(died  1385),  whose  works  are  very  rarely  met  with  in 
museums  north  of  Italy.  He  inherited  the  best  Giottesque 
traditions,  and  became  the  teacher  of  Gentile  da  Fabriano  (1360?- 
1428),  an  early  master  whose  influence  was  more  far-reaching  and 
inspiring  than  we  can  to-day  trace  in  any  detail.  The  Louvre 
has  the  good  fortune  to  contain  a  precious  little  predella  panel  of 
the  Preseniaiion  in  the  Temple  (No.  1278),  which  is  very  decorative 
and  exhibits  a  strongly  marked  appreciation  of  architecture.  It 
is  the  only  separated  panel  from  the  predella  of  Gentile's  large 
and  magnificent  altarpiece  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  of  1423, 
which  was  seized  by  Napoleon  but  was  returned  in  1815.  It  is 
now  in  the  Accademia  at  Florence. 

The  Miracle  of  St.  Nicholas  giving  a  Dowry  to  the  Three 
Daughters  of  a  Nobleman  (No.  1659),  which  is  ofiiciaUy  classed 
among  the  unattributable  works  of  the  Florentine  school,  is  now 
considered  to  be  by  Giovanni  Francesco  da  Bimini,  while  the 
Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1300a  or  1300b)  which  is  oflicially  ascribed 
to  Piero  dei  Franceschi,  the  leading  painter  of  his  generation  in 
the  school  of  Umbria,  must,  as  we  have  seen,  be  given  to  Alessio 
Baldovinetti  of  the  Florentine  school. 

Again,  the  three-panel  picture  (No.  1415)  which  is  credited 
to  Pesellino  of  Florence  is  in  reality  from  the  hand  of  the  Umbrian 
artist  Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo  (1440-1521).  The  collection  is  not  rich 
in  the  works  of  the  earliest  painters  of  this  school,  but  the  Birth  of 

53 


54  THE  LOUVRE 

the  Virgin  (No.  1525),  a  detached  panel  from  a  lost  or  unidentified 
altarpiece  by  Luca  Signorelli  (1441-1523),  gives  us  some  idea  of 
the  great  power  of  this  influential  master,  whose  knowledge  of 
composition  and  anatomy  ia  best  seen  in  his  frescoes  at  Orvieto. 
Signorelli's  sense  of  complicated  movement  and  crowded  action 
mark  an  epoch  in  the  art  of  Umbria.  The  Fragment  of  a  Large 
Picture  (No.  1527)  seems  to  be  imbued  with  his  spirit,  but  the 
large  Adoration  of  the  Magi  (No.  1526)  which  comes  from  Cittk  di 
Castello,  and  a  Madonna  and  Child  with  St.  Louis  of  Toulouse, 
St.  Catherine,  and  other  Saints  (No.  1528),  contain  none  of  the 
vigorous  originality  of  that  master  from  whom  even  Michelangelo 
did  not  disdain  to  borrow  on  occasion.  Three  predella  panels 
(No.  1120)  have  been  dismembered  from  a  large  altarpiece  by 
Niccol6  da  Foligno,  and  were  originally  painted  for  a  side  altar 
in  the  Church  of  S.  Niccol6  at  Foligno.  In  the  art  of  this  over- 
emotional  Umbrian,  what  is  meant  for  deep  religious  feeling  is  by 
exaggeration  almost  transformed  into  grimacing  passion. 


PERUGINO 

Niccol6's  most  illustrious  contemporary  in  this  school  was 
Pietro  Perugino  (1446-1523).  Over  fifty  of  the  religious  pictures 
of  this  influential  and  accomplished  master  were  carried  off  fi*om 
Central  Italy  by  Napoleon.  He  is  well  represented  in  this 
Gallery.  The  contemplative  and  deeply  impressive  pictures  of 
his  less  mannered  style  are  among  the  best  pictures  which  Umbria 
has  given  us,  but  there  is  a  tendency,  notably  towards  the  end  of 
his  career,  to  repeat  his  compositions,  only  altering  the  attitude 
of  a  single  figure,  and  so  exhibiting  a  marked  lack  of  originality. 
His  early  Holy  Family  with  St.  Rose  and  St.  Catherine  (No.  1564), 
painted  about  ] 491,  is  a  little  cramped;  the  tondo  hardly  provides 
sufficient  space  to  contain  the  rather  stiff  figures,  and  the  treatment 


THE  UMBRIAN  SCHOOL  55 

is  unpleasantly  conventional.  It  also  recalls  the  art  of  Fiorenzo 
di  Lorenzo.  The  /St.  /Sebastian  (No.  1566a,  Plate  VI.),  which  is 
inscribed : 

SAGITTAE   TV^    INFIX  y^.   8VNT    MICHI, 

is  a  favourite  subject  with  this  master,  who  painted  it  at  least 
eight  times  on  a  large  scale,  as  well  as  in  a  miniature  now  lent 
to  the  National  Gallery  by  Mr.  H.  Yates  Thompson.  The  ffoly 
Family  with  St.  Catherine  (No.  1565)  is  said  to  bear  the  character- 
istic signature : 

PETRUS    PERVSTNUS    PINXIT. 

The  Combat  of  Love  and  Chastity  (No.  1567)  was  commis- 
sioned by  Isabella  d'Este,  Duchess  of  Mantua,  in  1505,  and  removed 
at  the  sack  of  that  city  in  1630  to  the  Chateau  of  Richelieu, 
where  it  remained  down  to  the  Revolution.  The  St.  Paul  (No.  1566) 
is  a  very  late  and  not  very  attractive  work.  In  his  best  pictures 
Perugino  loved  to  paint  a  purist  landscape  with  its  buoyant 
spaciousness  of  view,  but  too  frequently  his  figures  are  in- 
sufficiently dramatic  and  have  a  tendency  towards  sentimentality. 
A  very  late  St.  Sebastian  (No.  1668a),  which  is  on  a  much  smaller 
scale  than  the  subject  of  our  illustration  (Plate  VI.),  is  officially 
catalogued  as  being  by  an  Unknown  Umbrian  painter.  The  Apollo 
and  Marsyas  (No.  1509),  which  was  purchased  at  Christie's  in  1850 
for  £70  by  Morris  Moore,  with  an  ascription  to  Mantegna,  was 
in  1883  sold  to  the  Louvre  for  £8000.  It  long  hung  in  the 
Salon  Carr^  as  a  Raphael,  but  is  now  only  attributed  to  him 
by  the  cataloguer.  This  gem  of  Umbrian  art  has  successively 
been  ascribed  by  critics  to  Pintoricchio,  Timoteo  Viti,  Francesco 
Francia,  and  others,  but  is  to-day  generally  regarded  as  a  very 
fine  example  of  the  art  of  Perugino.  Two  pictures  (No.  1573 
and  No.  1573a)  of  the  Madonna  and  Child  are  by  unidentifiable 
pupils  of  Perugino. 

One  of  the  most  recent  acquisitions  is  a  Madonna  by  Antoniazzo 


56  THE  LOUVRE 

Romano  (1440  ?-1508),  the  gift  of  M.  Lucien  Delamarre.  The  art 
of  Pintoricchio  (1454^-1513)  is  shown  in  the  Madonna  and  Child 
with  St  Gregory  and  another  Saint  (No.  1417),  while  Lo  Spagna 
(1475  ?-1528  ?),  a  pupil  of  Perugino,  is  represented  by  a  Nativity 
(No.  1539),  a  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1540),  and  by  three  small 
pictures  illustrating  the  Dead  Christ,  the  Virgin,  and  St.  John 
(No.  1568),  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  receiving  the  Stigmata  (No.  1569), 
and  St.  Jerome  in  the  Desert  (No.  1570). 

A  mediocre  pupil  of  Perugino  and  Pintoricchio,  Giannicola 
Manni  (fl.  1493-1544),  is  doubtless  responsible  for  the  Baptism  of 
Christ  (No.  1369),  the  Asswfnption  (No.  1370),  the  Adoration  of  the 
Magi  (No.  1371),  and  the  Holy  Family  (1372)  which  pass  under  his 
name.  The  last  -  mentioned  panel  was  attributed  by  Villot, 
apparently  without  much  reason,  to  L'Ingegno. 


RAPHAEL 

The  majority  of  the  thirteen  pictures  which  in  the  Louvre 
are  unreservedly  catalogued  under  the  great  name  of  Raphael 
(1483-1520)  certainly  belong  to  his  third  or  Roman  period,  and 
in  many  of  them  he  obviously  received  a  large  amount  of  assistance 
from  his  pupil,  Giulio  Romano.  It  is  this  fact,  no  doubt,  which  has 
led  the  compiler  of  the  Catalogue  to  place  the  **  Divine  Urbinate " 
in  the  Roman  school.  It  will,  however,  be  readily  admitted  that 
such  a  classification  is  both  arbitrary  and  misleading. 

Althougli  he  lived  but  thirty-seven  years,  Raphael  gave  to 
the  world  a  vast  amount  of  art  treasure.  Brought  up  in  Urbino, 
where  his  father,  Giovanni  Santi,  was  poet  as  well  as  painter, 
he  passed  before  he  was  fifteen  under  the  direct  influence  of 
Timoteo  Viti,  who  had  worked  at  Bologna  under  Francesco 
Francia.  Raphael  became  the  pupil  of  Perugino  at  Perugia  about 
1500,  and  also  worked  as  the  assistant  of  Pintoricchio.      His  art 


PLATE  VI.— PERUGINO 

(1446-1523) 

UMBRIAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1566a.— ST.  SEBASTIAN 
(Saint  Sebastien) 

The  Saint  stands  with  his  hands  behind  his  back  bound  to  a  pillar,  with  his  head  raised  towards  heaven. 
An  arrow  pierces  his  right  arm  and  another  his  left  breast.  The  body  is  nude,  but  for  a  white  loin  cloth 
striped  with  red  and  blue.  In  the  background  is  a  rounded  arclx  supported  by  two  highly  ornamented 
pillars.     Through  the  archway  is  seen  a  beautiful  landscape. 

Painted  in  tempera  on  panel. 

Signed  : — "  sagittjE  tv^  infix^  svnt  michi." 

5  ft.  7  in.  X  3  ft.  10  in.     (1-70  x  1-17.) 


THE  UMBRIAN  SCHOOL  57 

being  thus  formed  on  the  best  Umbrian  tradition,  Raphael  in 
October  1504  left  Perugia  for  Florence,  and  it  was  only  at 
that  date  that  he  began  to  acquire  a  distinctive  style  of  his 
own.  During  his  second  or  Florentine  period  he  painted  the 
St.  George  and  the  Dragon  (No.  1503),  in  which  is  seen  the  chivalrous 
knight  mounted  on  a  pure  white  steed ;  his  lance  is  broken 
in  his  combat  with  the  monster,  and  he  is  forced  to  use  his 
sword,  while  the  little  Princess  Cleodolinda  flees  in  abject  terror 
into  the  background.  The  very  small  panel  of  St.  Michael  (No. 
1502),  which  is  a  chessboard  on  the  back,  was  painted  for 
Guidobaldo,  Duke  of  Urbino,  and  eventually  passed  into  the 
collections  of  Cardinal  Mazarin  and  Louis  xiv.  The  Madonna 
and  Child  which  has  come  to  be  known  as  La  Belle  Jardiniere 
(No.  1496,  Plate  VII.)  is  rather  later  than  the  Madonna  del 
Gran'  Duca  in  the  Pitti  Palace,  the  Cardellino  Madonna  in  the 
Uffizi,  and  the  Ansidei  Madonna  in  the  National  Gallery.  It  is 
one  of  the  most  famous  of  Raphael's  saintly  and  ideal  Madonnas ; 
the  pose  of  the  figures  is  easy,  the  treatment  simple,  the  colour 
exquisite.  The  landscape  background  is  poetic  in  feeling,  and 
conveys  the  mood  which  makes  this  one  of  Raphael's  most 
pleasing  creations.  The  thin  feathery  trees  and  the  treatment 
of  the  Virgin's  hair  are  still  Peruginesque,  but  the  superiority 
of  the  pupil  to  the  master  is  gradually  making  itself  felt.  The 
Infant  Christ  is  standing  on  the  right  foot  of  His  mother. 
Tradition  says  that  Raphael  entrusted  to  Ridolfo  Ghirlandaio 
the  task  of  painting  in  the  blue  of  the  Virgin's  garment.  The 
drapery  is  apparently  inscribed  : 

VRB.    RAPHAELLO    MDVII. 

After  working  for  four  years  in  Florence,  Raphael  went  in 
the  summer  of  1508  to  Rome,  where  he  achieved  such  a  vast 
amount     of    work    for     Popes     Julius     ii.     and    Leo    x.        His 

8 


58  THE   LOUVRE 

work  was  increased  by  his  appointment,  on  the  death  of 
Bramante  in  1514,  as  Architect  of  St.  Peter's  and  Inspector  of 
Antiquities. 

About  1515-16  Raphael  delighted  to  paint  the  Portrait  of 
Baldassare  Castiglione  (No.  1505,  Plate  VIII.),  who  was  his  life- 
long friend  and  adviser  as  well  as  the  author  of  R  Cortegiano. 
This  picture,  which  is  eloquent  testimony  to  Raphael's  skill 
as  a  portrait  painter,  was  originally  on  wood,  but  it  was  long 
ago  transferred  to  canvas,  which  has  unfortunately  abraded,  the 
paint  having  peeled  oflf  the  hands.  After  the  death  of  Castiglione 
in  Spain,  this  picture  which  he  had  taken  with  him  passed  into 
the  possession  of  the  Duke  of  Mantua,  and  thence  into  the  collection 
of  Charles  i.,  where  it  seems  to  have  been  copied  by  Rubens.  It 
subsequently  became  the  property  of  a  Dutch  amateur  named 
Van  Asselen,  and  was  copied  by  Rembrandt.  Later,  it  was  sold 
for  3500  florins  to  Don  Alfonso  Lopez,  a  collector  at  Amsterdam, 
and  after  figuring  in  the  collection  of  Mazarin  was  acquired  by 
Louis  XIV. 

The  Holy  Family  of  Francis  I.  (No.  1498)  was  commissioned  by 
Lorenzo  de'  Medici  and  presented  to  the  Queen  of  Fran9ois  i.  by 
Pope  Leo  x.  It  was  originally  painted  on  wood,  and  was  forwarded 
to  Lyons  on  April  19,  1518.  During  the  reign  of  Louis  xrv.  it 
hung  in  the  grand  appartement  at  Versailles,  and  having  been 
placed  near  a  fireplace  had  to  be  relined.  It  then  had  wings, 
but  they  were  destroyed  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution.  Although 
it  is  very  ostentatiously  signed 

RAPHAEL   VRBINAS    PINGEBAT    MDXVIII 

on  the  edge  of  the  robe  of  the  kneeling  Madonna,  there  can  be  no 
question  that  it  was  only  designed  by  Raphael,  the  execution 
being  wholly  or  in  great  part  carried  out  by  the  master's  best 
pupil,  Giulio  Romano.     In  the  Sistine  Madonrm  and  such  works  as 


PLATE   VII.— KAPHAEL 

(1483-1520) 

UMBKIAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1496.— LA  BELLE  JARDINlfeRE 
(La  Vierge  rlite  La  Belle  Jardiniire) 

The  Virgin  is  seated  in  a  flowery  meadow.  She  wears  a  red  tunic  edged  with  black,  yellow  sleeves 
and  a  blue  mantle  ;  a  book  is  on  her  knees  ;  her  fair  hair  is  confined  under  a  transparent  veil.  She 
looks  down  to  the  left  at  the  Infant  Jesus,  who  leans  tenderly  against  her  knee  and  draws  her  attention 
to  the  little  St.  John  the  Baptist  who  kneels  to  the  right,  his  reed  cross  in  his  right  hand.  The  background 
shows  a  landscape  containing  a  small  town  with  its  church,  and  a  lake  surrounded  by  mountains. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

The  signature  seems  to  be  : — "  vrb.  eaphaello  mdvii." 

3  ft.  8  in.  X  2  ft.  7^  in.     (1-22  x  OSO.) 


THE  UMBRIAN   SCHOOL  59 

Raphael  painted  at  this  period  entirely  with  his  own  hand  we  see 
that  his  technique  had  become  masterly  and  his  powers  of 
composition  had  developed  to  the  utmost.  Compared  with  La  Belle 
Jardiniere  of  a  decade  earlier,  a  greater  knowledge  of  craftsmanship 
has  been  accompanied  by  a  loss  of  purity  and  simplicity. 

Two  years  before  his  death  Raphael  had  designed  the  large 
but  by  no  means  imposing  St.  Michael  overcoming  Satan  (No.  1504), 
the  execution  of  which  on  panel  was  certainly  due  to  Giulio 
Romano.  It  was  a  gift  from  Lorenzo  de'  Medici  to  Fran9ois  i., 
the  original  cartoon  being  presented  by  Raphael  to  the  Duke  of 
Ferrara.  This  picture,  like  the  Holy  Family  of  Francis  I.,  was 
originally  protected  by  folding  wings,  the  inner  sides  of  which 
were  lined  with  green  velvet,  while  the  outer  were  gilded  and 
painted  with  arabesques.  The  two  pictures  arrived  at  Fontaine- 
bleau  in  July  1518,  having  been  carried  on  the  back  of  mules  by 
way  of  Florence  and  Lyons.  As  early  as  1530  the  8t.  Michael 
was  restored  by  Primaticcio  and  by  many  others  subsequently, 
notably  in  1752.  The  picture  was  transferred  to  canvas  by  Picault, 
who  received  for  his  labours  the  large  sum  of  11,500  livres,  a  sum 
quite  out  of  proportion  to  its  aesthetic  or  financial  value  to-day. 
It  was  again  restored  in  1776,  1800,  and  1850.  It  is  signed  in 
gilt  characters  on  the  edge  of  the  Archangel's  tunic : 

RAPHAEL   VRBINAS    PINGEBAT   MDXVIH. 

The  Demon  is  not  shown,  as  in  the  early  and  small  picture 
of  the  same  subject  (No.  1502),  as  a  dragon,  but  as  a  half-human 
monster,  with  horns  and  tail.  The  foreshortening  is  undoubtedly 
clever,  but  the  picture  is  too  instantaneous  in  its  dramatic  action. 
In  the  course  of  time  the  high  lights  have  gone  down  and  the 
shadows  darkened  in  the  metallic-looking  figure  of  the  Archangel. 

The  Virgin  with  the  Blue  Diadem  or  the  Virgin  with  the  Veil 
(No.   1497)  is  one  of  at  least  ten  pictures  in  this  collection  which 


60  THE  LOUVRE 

were  carried  out  by  Giulio  Romano  (1492  ?-l  546).  It  is  here 
credited  to  Raphael.  It  has  been  repeatedly  restored.  A  verj* 
large  number  of  replicas,  variants,  and  old  copies  of  this  panel 
exist.  The  following  "Raphaels"  may  be  regarded  as  the  work 
of  Giulio :  the  Small  Holy  Family  with  St.  Elizabeth  (No.  1499) ; 
the  much  restored  Saint  Margaret  (No.  1501) ;  the  Portrait  of  Joan 
of  Arragon  (No.  1507),  whom  Raphael  apparently  never  saw ;  and 
the  Portraits  of  Two  Men  seen  to  the  Bust  (which  has  been  called 
Raphael  and  his  Fencing  Master)  (No.  1508).  Giulio  certainly 
painted  the  Triumph  of  Titus  and  Vespasian  (No.  1420),  the  Venus 
and  Vulcan  (No.  1421),  and  the  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  1422), 
which  are  catalogued  under  his  name,  and  in  all  probability  the 
three  large  Cartoons  entitled  A  Triumph,  The  Triumph  of  Scipio, 
and  The  Taking  and  Burning  of  a  City,  which  hang  on  the  Escalier 
Daru.  The  Circumcision  (No.  1438)  which  figures  officially  under 
the  name  of  the  Bolognese  painter  Bartolommeo  Ramenghi  (II 
Bagnacavallo)  (1484-1542)  is  by  Giulio  Romano. 

The  fresco  painting  of  The  Eternal  Father  (No.  1512),  which  is 
now  inserted  over  the  door  of  the  Salle  des  Primitifs  (Room  VII.), 
was  certainly  executed  during  the  lifetime  of  Raphael,  and  pro- 
bably under  his  supervision.  It  was  painted  for  the  chapel 
attached  to  the  Villa  Magliana,  a  favourite  hunting-box  of  Pope 
Leo  X.,  who  commissioned  it.  It  was  purchased  in  1873  for  the 
large  sum  of  £8280. 

From  the  hand  of  Giannicola  Manni  (fl.  1493-1544)  come  the 
Baptism  of  Christ  (No.  1369),  the  Assumption  (No.  1370),  the 
Adoration  of  the  Magi  (No.  1371),  and  a  Holy  Family  (No.  1372), 
while  a  fully  signed  Dead  Christ  supported  by  Two  Angels  (No.  1400) 
is  by  the  mediocre  Umbrian  artist  Marco  Palmezzano  (fl.  1456-1538). 
The  latter's  pupil,  Zaganelli  da  Cottignola  (1460  ?-1531),  may  have 
painted  the  Christ  bearing  His  Cross  (No.  1641)  which  is  catalogued 
•  as  an  unattributable  Italian  work. 


PLATE  VIIL— RAPHAEL 

(1483-1520) 

UMBKIAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1505.— PORTRAIT  OF  BALDASSARE  CASTIGLIONE 
(Portrait  de  Balthazar  Castiglione,  ambassacleur  et  litterateur) 

He  is  seen  nearly  in  full  face.     He  wears  a  white  linen  under-garmcnt,  an  over  dress  of  black  velvet 
with  grey  sleeves,  and  a  cap. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

2  ft.  0^  in.  X  2  ft.  2J  in.     (062  x  0C7.) 


THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL 

THE  conquest  of  Byzantium  during  the  Fourth  Crusade  by- 
Doge  Enrico  Dandolo  in  1204,  an  epoch-making  event 
in  the  history  of  Venice  and  Venetian  art,  strengthened 
the  intercourse  between  the  East  and  the  City  of  the  Lagoons.  At 
the  same  time  it  riveted  the  fetters  of  Byzantinism  on  to  the 
nascent  art  of  Venice,  to  which  it  also  imparted  a  sense  of  intense 
Oriental  colour. 

The  frescoes  painted  in  Tuscany  on  the  lines  of  Giottesque 
tradition  and  the  environment  under  which  its  painters  worked, 
in  time  gave  to  the  Florentines  a  sense  of  line  and  form  which 
produced  a  school  of  idealists :  on  the  other  hand,  the  colour- 
impressions  created  on  the  mind  of  the  Venetian  painter  by  the 
relics  from  the  East  and  the  brilliant  mosaics  which  he  saw  around 
him  resulted  eventually  in  the  formation  of  a  school  of  colourists 
with  a  realistic  tendency. 

It  will  cause  little  surprise  that  the  Louvre  contains  no 
polyptych  by  the  very  early  Venetians,  Niccol6  Semitecolo  (fl.  1351- 
1400),  Jacobello  del  Fiore  (died  1439),  and  Michele  Giambono 
(fl.  1420-1462).  The  Gallery  possesses,  however,  a  fourteenth- 
century  Venetian  arched  panel  of  the  Madonna  and  Child  (No. 
1541)  which  is  attributed  to  Stefano  Veneziano. 

In  the  early  fifteenth  century  the  dominating  influence  exerted 
on  the  painters  of  Venice  was  that  of  Jacopo  Bellini  (1400  ?-1470), 
whose  sons.  Gentile  and  Giovanni,  and  son-in-law,  Andrea  Mantegna, 
were  to  shape  the  destinies  of  the  school  throughout  the  Re- 
naissance.    Jacopo's  drawing  is   seen  in  its  full  maturity  in  the 

6i 


62  THE  LOUVRE 

Sketch-book  of  about  1450  which  belongs  to  the  Louvre  but  ia 
not  publicly  exhibited.  Another  Sketch-book  by  him  of  about  1430 
is  one  of  the  treasured  possessions  of  the  British  Museum.  Jacopo 
had  in  early  life  been  the  pupil  of  Gentile  da  Fabriano,  who, 
together  with  Alegretto  Nuzi,  stands  at  the  head  of  the  Umbrian 
school,  and  of  Antonio  Pisanello  (1397-1455),  the  medallist-painter 
who  played  such  an  important  part  in  the  art  of  Verona.  Both 
Gentile  da  Fabriano  and  Pisanello  worked  for  a  time  at  Venice. 
Under  the  circumstances,  therefore,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that 
a  Madonna  and  Child  with  a  Donor  (No.  1159a,  formerly  No.  1279 
and  No.  171),  which  is  now  justly  ascribed  in  the  Catalogue  to 
Jacopo  BelUni,  was  long  assigned  officially  to  Gentile  Bellini, 
although  held  by  some  critics  to  have  been  painted  in  the  school 
of  Pisanello.  The  name  of  the  Donor  in  this  picture  is  given  in 
the  Catalogue  as  Leonello  d'Este  and  on  the  frame  as  Pandolfo 
Malatesta ;  it  would,  however,  seem  to  be  the  portrait  of  Sigismondo 
Malatesta. 

Four  small  triptychs  (Nos.  1280-83)  from  the  Campana  collec- 
tion still  pass  officially  under  the  ambiguous  designation  of  "  School 
of  Gentile  da  Fabriano " ;  they  may,  however,  without  much  doubt 
be  ascribed  to  Antonio  Vivarini,  who  remained  outside  the  Bellini 
sphere  of  influence,  and  died  about  1470. 

THE   BELLINI 

The  sunny  splendour  of  Venetian  painting  reached  its  zenith  in 
the  hottega  of  the  Bellini.  Gentile,  who  was  sent  to  Constantinople 
with  the  authority  of  the  Republic  in  1479,  painted  portraits, 
ceremonial,  religious,  and  historical  pictures,  many  of  which  are  on 
a  large  scale,  while  Giovanni  was  for  many  years  the  greatest 
teacher  and  the  most  influential  painter  in  Venetian  territory. 
Giovanni  executed  a  large  number  of  panels  and  canvases  which 


THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL  63 

in  the  period  of  his  maturity  exhibit  a  profound  sense  of  dignity, 
beauty,  religious  feeling,  and  rich  deep  colour.  Most  of  those 
which  are  signed  in  a  cartellino  "ioannes  bellinus"  (in  capitals 
and,  of  course,  in  pigment  of  the  period)  are  authentic  works 
from  his  own  hand.  The  majority  of  those  which  bear  what  to 
the  unpractised  eye  might  be  taken  for  his  personal  signature, 
but  are  only  signed  in  uncials  {" loannes  Bellinus"),  must  be 
regarded  as  mere  studio  productions.  In  the  sixteenth  century 
no  one  was  misled  by  these  alternative  methods  of  personal 
signature  and  studio-mark.  Although  the  Louvre  authorities 
catalogue  two  pictures  under  the  name  of  Gentile  and  three 
under  that  of  Giovanni,  none  of  them  is  from  the  hand  of  either 
of  these  brothers. 

Bartolommeo  Vivarini  of  Murano  (fl.  1450-1499)  was  the  pupil 
of  Giovanni  d'AUemagna,  who  worked  in  Venice,  and  Antonio 
Vivarini.  He  painted  a  large  panel  of  St.  John  of  Capistrano 
(No.  1607),  which  is  signed  and  dated 

OPVS   BARTHOLOMEI   VI[v]aRINI   DE   MURAHO — 1459. 

Alvise  or  Luigi  Vivarini  (fl.  1461-1503),  the  nephew  of 
Bartolommeo,  was  the  last  and  most  distinguished  painter  in  the 
Murano  school.  He  carried  on  the  old  traditions  of  Early  Venetian 
art  until  the  day  when  the  rival  school  of  the  BelUni  had  become 
supreme  in  Venice,  and  so  had  begun  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
triumphs  of  the  Giorgionesque  period — the  golden  age  of  Venetian 
painting.  The  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  1519),  catalogued  under  the 
name  of  Savoldo  (1480  ?-l  548  ?)  is  by  Alvise.  This  magnificent 
bust-length  picture  represents  Bernardo  di  Salla,  who  holds  in  his 
gloved  right  hand  a  paper  inscribed  '' Dono  Bnardo  di  Salla."  It 
vividly  recalls  the  Portrait  of  a  Man  with  a  Hawk  at  Windsor, 
which,  although  it  traditionally  but   erroneously  bears  the   name 


64  THE  LOUVRE 

of  Leonardo  da  Vinci  and  has  been  ascribed  to  Savoldo,  is  in  all 
probability  another  of  the  rare  portraits  by  Alvise. 

From  the  Vivarini  group  issues  Carlo  Crivelli  (1430  ?-1493  ?). 
His  morosely  ascetic  compositions,  with  their  elaborate  draperies, 
jewelled  ornamentation,  and  at  times  grotesque  anatomy,  distinguish 
his  polyptychs,  all  of  which  are  painted  in  tempera,  from  those  of  any 
other  painter  in  the  whole  range  of  art.  His  large  panel  picture  of 
St.  Bernardino  of  Siena  (No.  1268)  is  inscribed 

OPUS   CAROLI   CRIVELLI   VENETI,  1477. 

It  belongs  to  his  middle  period,  and  was  painted  nine  years  earlier 
than  his  magnificent  Annunciation,  now  one  of  the  gems  of  the 
National  Gallery  (No.  739) ;  both  these  pictures  came  jfrom  the 
Church  of  the  Annunziata  at  Ascoli. 

Another  painter  who  carried  on  the  Vivarini  tradition  but  was 
influenced  by  Giovanni  Bellini,  was  Giovanni  Battista  Cima  (1460  ?- 
1517?),  whose  art  is  adequately  shown  in  the  Madonna  and  Child 
with  St.  John  the  Baptist  and  St.  Mary  Magdalene  (No.  1259).  The 
signature 

lOANIS   BAPT, 

CONEGLANES. 

OPVS. 

as  well  as  the  internal  evidence  of  the  picture  show  it  to  be  an 
authentic  work. 

One  of  the  best,  but  until  recent  years  one  of  the  least  known, 
members  of  that  brilliant  group  of  painters  who  flourished  at  Venice 
in  the  early  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  Lorenzo  Lotto 
(1480-1556).  He  practised  his  art  in  many  parts  of  Italy,  and  for 
that  reason  has  been  less  generally  known  than  many  of  his 
contemporaries.  He  was  a  pupil  of  Alvise  Vivarini,  but  benefited 
largely  by  the  example  of  Giovanni  Bellini  and  Giorgione.  His  art 
is  not  well  seen  in  the  small  St.  Jerome  (No.  1350),  which  is  signed 


PLATE   IX.— ANTONELLO   DA  MESSINA 
(1430-1479) 

VENETIAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1134.— PORTRAIT  OF  A  CONDOTTIERE 
(Portrait  d'lioiume  dit  le  Condottiere) 

Bust  portrait,  turned  tliree-quarters  to  the  left.     He  wears  a  black  doublet,  above  tlie  collar  of  which  is 
visible  tlic  edge  of  a  white  linen  under-garment.     Under  his  cap  is  seen  his  zazzara  of  red-brown  hair. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

Signed  :  "  1474 

Antonellus  Messancus  me 
pinxit." 

1  ft.  1  in.  X  11  in.     (0-33  x  0-28.) 


THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL  65 

and  dated  "lotvs  1500"  and  must  therefore  be  one  of  his  earliest 
and  least  ambitious  works,  nor  in  his  Holy  Family  (No.  1351)  which 
was  formerly  attributed  to  Dosso  Dossi.  Replicas  have  been  found 
of  his  Christ  and  the  Woman  taken  in  Adultery  (No.  1349). 

Although  we  possess  very  detailed  records  of  Antonello  da 
Messina  (1430-1479),  his  movements  and  his  life's  work,  it  is  only 
in  recent  years  that  they  have  been  studied  with  any  care.  This 
Sicilian-born  artist  obviously  cannot  have  set  out  for  Flanders  and 
there  have  learnt  from  Jan  van  Eyck  (who  died  in  1441)  the 
"discovery"  of  oil  as  a  medium  in  painting,  as  Vasari  tells  us. 
But  he  may  have  seen  in  Italy  a  picture  by  the  great  Northern 
artist  and  from  it  have  acquired  some  facility  in  the  use  of  oil 
and  in  finishing  with  glazes  of  oil  panels  which  had  been  begun 
in  tempera.  He  was  certainly  in  Venice  in  1475-76,  if  not  earlier, 
and  his  Portrait  of  a  Condottiere  (No.  1134,  Plate  IX.),  which  is 
characteristically  signed  and  dated 

Antmiellus  Messaneus  me 
pinxit 

belongs  to  that  period  of  his  full  maturity.     It  was  purchased  at 

the  Pourtal^s-Gorgier  sale  in  1865  for  £4767.     In  any   case,   the 

discoveries  with  which  Antonello  is  credited  within  a  few  years 

completely    revolutionised    the    methods    of  painting    throughout 

Italy,  and  prepare  us  for  the  wonderful  achievements  of  the  later 

Venetians,  who  followed  and  improved  upon  the  Bellini  tradition. 

Vittore    Carpaccio    (1455?-1526)   was,   like    Gentile   Bellini,   a 

painter  of  Venetian  fetes,  pageantry,  and  religious  pictures  on  an 

imposing  scale.     Nothing  is  known  of  Carpaccio's  artistic  descent, 

but  his  work  shows  traces  of  the  influence  of  Jacopo  Bellini  and  of 

Lazzaro  Bastiani,  who  was  the  head  of  a  group  of  artists  whose 

art  was  based  on  the  tradition  of  such  early  painters  as  Jacobello 
9 


66  THE  LOUVRE 

del  Fiore.  Carpaccio's  Preaxahing  of  St.  Stephen  at  JemsaZem,  (No. 
1211)  is  one  of  the  series  of  five  incidents  from  the  Life  of  St. 
Stephen  which  were  painted  by  this  artist  between  1511  and  1520 
for  the  Scuola  di  S.  Stefano  at  Milan.  The  others  of  the  series 
are  now  in  the  Milan  Gallery  (No.  170 — signed  and  dated  1513), 
at  Berlin  (No.  23),  and  at  Stuttgart.  The  Louvre  obtained  this 
canvas,  which  varies  from  the  others  in  size,  from  the  Milan 
Gallery  in  1813,  when  together  with  Boltraffio's  Madonna  of 
the  Casio  Family  (No.  1169)  and  other  pictures  it  was  exchanged 
for  works  by  Rembrandt,  Rubens,  Van  Dyck,  and  Jordaens. 

To  Vincenzo  Catena  (14 . .  ?-1531  ?)  may  be  assigned,  on  stylistic 
grounds,  the  Reception  of  a  Venetian  Ambassador  at  Cairo  in  1612 
(No.  1157).  In  any  case,  it  cannot  have  been  executed  by  Gentile 
Bellini,  as  alleged  in  the  Catalogue,  as  the  audience  here  depicted 
did  not  take  place  until  five  years  after  that  master's  death ! 

Another  Bellinesque  painter  was  Bartolommeo  Veneto  (fl.  1505— 
1555).  We  shall,  following  the  suggestion  of  Venturi,  assign  to  him 
the  excellent  but  officially  unattributed  Portrait  of  a  Lady  (No. 
1673)  which  hangs  to  the  right  of  Raphael's  La  Belle  Jardiniere. 


GIORGIONE 

Although  a  large  number  of  really  representative  examples  of 
the  great  lyricist  Giorgione  (1477-1510)  have  not  come  down  to  us, 
he  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  greatest  of  the  Venetian  artists,  and 
perhaps  the  most  romantic  painter  that  Europe  has  ever  known. 
He  was,  together  with  his  illustrious  contemporary  Titian,  a  pupil 
of  Giovanni  Bellini.  His  Pastoral  Symphony  (No.  1136,  Plate  X.)  is 
one  of  the  most  beautiful  idyllic  groups  in  the  whole  range  of  paint- 
ing, and  shows  that  Giorgione  could  naively  reveal  the  inner  depths 
of  thought  and  feeling  and  depict  "passionate  souls  in  passionate 
bodies."     Early  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  austere  traditions  of  the 


PLATE  X.— GIOEGIONE 

(1477  ?-1510) 

VENETIAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1136.— PASTORAL  SYMPHONY 
(Concert  Champetre) 

Two  young  men  are  seated  on  the  grass ;  the  one,  wearing  a  green  tunic  with  red  sleeves,  a  red  cap 
and  parti-coloured  hose,  is  playing  on  the  lute  ;  his  companion  bends  over  to  listen  to  him.  Before  them 
a  nude  woman,  lier  back  turned  to  tlie  spectator,  is  seated  holding  a  (lute.  To  the  left  another  nude  woman, 
with  a  drapery  across  her  left  hip,  is  drawing  water  at  a  fountain.  In  the  background  to  tlie  right  is  seen 
a  shepherd  with  his  flock.     In  tlie  centre  background  are  some  liouses. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

3  ft.  7i  in.  X  4  ft.  6J  in.     (110  x  1-38.) 


W 


THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL  67 

Bellinesque  era  were  passing  away.  Giorgione  now  began  to  unseal 
the  eyes  of  his  contemporaries,  among  whom  Titian  occupied  an 
important  place,  to  the  "life-giving  and  death-dealing  waters  of 
love,"  making  the  landscape  background  of  his  lyrical  compositions 
respond  to  the  mood  of  the  incident  illustrated.  The  Pastoral 
Symphony  was  acquired  by  Charles  i.  from  the  collection  of  the 
Duke  of  Mantua ;  it  then  passed  to  Jabach,  and  subsequently  to 
Louis  XIV.  Although  it  has  been  slightly  restored  and  has  from 
time  to  time  been  without  any  reason  ascribed  to  Titian,  Sebastiano 
del  Piombo  and  a  large  number  of  Venetian  artists,  it  is  to-day 
recognised  on  all  sides  as  an  excellent  example  of  Giorgione. 

The  same  influences  which  formed  the  art  of  Giorgione  in- 
spired the  pictures  of  Palma  Vecchio  (1480-1528),  whose  Adoration 
of  the  Shepherds  with  a  Female  Donor  (No.  1399,  Plate  XI.)  is  brilliant 
in  colour.  The  signature  in  the  right  foreground  of  this  canvas, 
TiciAN,  is  false.  Palma  left  a  large  number  of  pictures  unfinished 
at  his  death. 

The  Visitation  (No.  1352)  is  an  admirable  example  of  the  art 
of  Sebastiano  del  Piombo  (1485-1547),  and  is  signed 

SEBASTIANVS   VENETVS    FACIEBAT 
ROMAE    MDXXI. 

It  was  purchased  in  the  year  indicated  in  the  inscription  by 
Franyois  i.,  who  added  it  to  his  collection  at  Fontainebleau,  whence 
it  was  removed  by  Louis  xiv.  to  Versailles.  The  canvas,  which  has 
been  a  good  deal  injured,  has  at  some  time  been  cut  into  three 
pieces.  The  name  by  which  this  artist  is  generally  known  was 
derived  from  the  office  which  he  held  late  in  life  at  the  Papal  Court. 
There  he  forsook  the  traditions  of  his  native  school  and  gradually 
came  under  the  influence  of  Michelangelo.  In  Rome  he  also  met 
Raphael,  who  was  much  impressed  by  his  colour  schemes :  the  St. 
John  the  Baptist  in  the  Desert  (No.  1500),  here  catalogued  under  the 


68  THE  LOUVRE 

name  of  Raphael,  and  a  few  pictures  similarly  attributed  in  other 
galleries,  were  painted  by  Sebastiano  in  his  Roman  manner. 

A  prominent  place  among  the  less  important  artists  generally 
included  in  this  school  must  be  accorded  to  Cariani  (1480  ?-1547  ?). 
A  large  proportion  of  the  pictures  of  this  Bergamask  painter 
usually  pass  under  more  imposing  names,  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  we  do  not  find  any  work  attributed  to  him  in  the  official  Cata- 
logue. He,  however,  painted  a  Holy  Family  (No.  1135),  here  assigned 
to  Giorgione,  as  well  as  the  Madonna  and  Child  and  St  Sebastian 
(No.  1159)  given  to  Giovanni  Bellini.  The  Portrait  of  Two  Men  (No. 
1156),  which  for  no  very  apparent  reason  was  once  regarded  as  the 
portraits  of  Gentile  and  Giovanni  Bellini,  must  be  by  Cariani, 
although  still  placed  to  the  credit  of  Gentile. 

Another  of  the  less  efficient  pupils  of  Giovanni  Bellini  was 
Niccol6  Rondinelli  (fl.  1480-1500),  whose  Madonna  and  Child,  St. 
Peter,  and  St.  Sebastian  (No.  1158)  masquerades  as  a  work  by  Giovanni 
Bellini,  whose  full  name,  ioannes  bellinvs,  is  inscribed  in  capitals 
(not,  however,  placed  in  a  cartellino)  on  the  parapet  which  runs 
across  the  front  of  the  panel. 


TITIAN 

Although  we  have  only  limited  space  to  deal  with  the  differences 
of  the  critics  as  to  the  probable  date  of  Titian's  birth,  we  may  point 
out  that  it  was,  until  recent  times,  placed  in  the  year  1477.  Mr. 
Herbert  Cook  has,  however,  put  forward  a  very  strong  case  in  favour 
of  the  year  1489,  pointing  out  the  remarkable  fact  that  there  is  no 
record  of  Titian  earlier  than  Dec.  2,  1511,  or,  according  to  the  usual 
chronology,  until  he  was  thirty -five  years  of  age !  Again,  L.  Dolce, 
in  1557,  wrote  that  Titian  was  "scarcely  twenty  years  old  when 
Giorgione  was  painting  the  fa9ade  of  the  Fondaco  de'  Tedeschi " ; 
and  we  know  that  Titian  was  his  assistant  on  that  work  in  1507-8. 


PLATE   XI.— PALMA   VECCHIO 
(1480-1528) 

VENETIAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1399.— THE  ADORATION  OF  THE  SHEPHERDS,   WITH   A  FEMALE  DONOR 

(L'Annonco  aiix  Bergers) 

The  Virgin  is  seated  and  holds  the  Infant  Jesus  on  a  cradle  formed  of  ba.sket-work ;  she  wears  a  red 
robe  with  blue  and  green  draperies  and  a  white  veil,  under  which  her  brown  hair  is  seen.  To  her  right  St. 
Joseph  is  seated  leaning  on  his  staff ;  before  him  a  shepherd  boy  kneels  in  adoration  to  the  Infant  Christ. 
To  the  left  kneels  tlie  donatrice,  her  hands  folded.  In  the  ruined  shed  behind  the  Holy  Family  are  the  ox 
and  ass.  To  the  right  of  the  composition  is  a  landscape  background  in  which  several  figures  appear.  A 
small  group  of  angels  in  the  sky. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

4  ft.  7  in.  X  6  ft.  11  in.     (1-40  x  2-10.) 


\. 


THE   VENETIAN   SCHOOL  69 

Vasari  also  asserts,  as  Mr.  Cook  reminds  us,  that  the  famous 
Venetian  was  "about  seventy -six  years  old  in  1566-67,"  when  he 
visited  him  in  Venice.  No  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the  date 
contained  in  the  well-known  letter  which  Titian  addressed  to 
Philip  II.  in  1571,  as  he  evidently  had  a  motive  in  referring  to  him- 
self as  "  an  old  servant  of  ninety-five."  There  is,  however,  no  doubt 
that  Titian  died  in  1576. 

Titian,  who  was  a  native  of  Cadore,  left  his  home  at  an 
early  age  for  Venice.  He  was  first  placed  as  a  pupil  of  Sebastian 
Zuccato,  a  mosaicist  and  perhaps  a  painter ;  he  then  seems  to 
have  worked  in  the  studio  of  Gentile  Bellini  before  passing  into 
that  of  Giovanni,  where  he  met  Giorgione,  Titian,  like  Giotto, 
has  been  called  "the  Father  of  modern  painting."  The  early 
Florentine  had  provided  his  countrymen  with  a  set  of  funda- 
mental principles  of  art,  but  it  remained  for  the  illustrious  Venetian 
to  endow  his  contemporaries  and  artistic  descendants  with  a  more 
complete  equipment  and  a  new  sense  of  pictorial  effect.  The 
profound  impression  exerted  by  Giorgione  on  the  youthful  Titian 
inspired  him  to  achieve  those  idyllic  compositions  and  "poesies" 
which  stand  out  so  prominently  among  the  world's  pictures. 

Titian's  earliest  picture  in  the  Louvre  is  the  Virgin  and 
Child,  with  St.  Stephen,  St.  Ambrose,  and  St.  Maurice  (No.  1577),  of 
about  1508-1510.  It  is  very  reminiscent  of  a  picture  by  Titian  in 
the  Vienna  Gallery  (No.  166),  in  which  he  has  substituted  St. 
Jerome  for  St.  Ambrose. 

No  doubt  can  exist  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  so-called 
Portrait  of  Alfonso  da  Ferrara  and  Laura  de'  Dianti  (No.  1590),  but 
the  title  under  which  it  has  passed  for  many  years  is  probably 
incorrect.  It  was  in  the  collection  of  Charles  i.,  and  was  then 
described  as  "Tytsian's  Mrs.,  after  the  life  by  Tytsian."  In  the 
collection  of  Jabach  it  was  called  La  MaUresse  du  Titien,  and  as 
such  was  sold  to  Louis  xiv.  for  £100.     This  picture  would  correctly 


70  THE  LOUVRE 

be  described  under  the  less  ambitious  title  of  A  Woman  at  her 
Toilet  and  a  Man  fwlding  Two  Mirrors.  Laura  was  the  daughter 
of  a  hatter  of  Ferrara.  She  was  persona  grata  at  the  court  of 
Alfonso  I.,  Duke  of  Ferrara  (reigned  1505-1534),  and  there  held 
the  title  of  Illustrissvma  Donna  Laura  £!ustochia  d'Este.  The  Duke's 
first  wife,  Anna  Sforza,  died  in  1497,  when  he  was  twenty-one  years 
old.  In  1501  he  married,  as  his  second  wife,  Lucrezia  Borgia 
(died  1519),  the  natural  daughter  of  Pope  Alexander  vi.  It  seems 
probable  that  shortly  afterwards  the  Duke  took  Laura  as  his 
third  wife,  and  that  she  was  painted  by  Titian  a  little  later.  The 
Louvre  picture  (No.  1590)  appears  on  stylistic  grounds  to  be  a 
work  of  about  1515-1517.  A  portrait  which  can  be  more  certainly 
identified  as  that  of  Laura  is  the  single  figure  picture,  painted 
by  Titian  about  1523,  in  the  collection  of  Sir  Frederick  Cook  at 
Richmond. 

The  influence  of  Giorgione  is  still  clearly  seen  in  Titian's  Man 
with  a  Glove  (No.  1592,  Plate  XII.).  It  is  a  noble  portrait  of  an 
unknown  man ;  the  colour  is  rich,  and  the  light  and  shade  are 
contrasted  with  great  mastery ;  the  bare  right  hand  and  the 
gloved  lefb  holding  the  second  glove  are  admirably  modelled.  The 
canvas,  which  seems  to  have  been  painted  about  1518,  is  signed 
"ticianvs  f."  Soon  afterwards  Titian  must  have  painted  the 
Portrait  of  a  Man  in  Black  with  the  Thumb  of  his  Left  Hand  in 
the  Belt  of  his  Doublet  (No.  1591),  the  Madonna  with  the  Rabbit 
(No.  1578),  which  is  inscribed  Ticianus  F.,  and  the  magnificent 
Entomhment  (No.  1584,  Plate  XIIL).  This  priceless  picture,  which 
was  painted  not  later  than  1523  for  Federigo  Gonzaga,  passed 
from  Mantua  into  the  collection  of  Charles  i.  It  was  sold  ofi"  by 
Cromwell  for  £128  and,  after  being  one  of  the  masterpieces  for  a 
few  years  in  the  collection  of  Jabach,  was  acquired  by  Louis  xrv. 
The  deep  religious  feeling  and  the  rich,  sonorous  harmony  of  colour 
make  this  one  of  the  world's  most  precious  pictures.     Notice  the 


PLATE   XII.— TIT  [AN 
(1489  ?-1576) 

VENETIAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1592.— THE   MAN  WITH  A  GLOVE 
(L'honime  au  Gant) 

He  is  standing  and  seen  nearly  in  full  face,  the  head  turned  three-quarters  to  the  right,  the  eyes 
directed  to  the  right.  He  wears  a  black  costume  with  a  white  pleated  under-garnient,  a  gold  chain  round  his 
neck,  and  white  frills  in  his  sleeves.  His  right  hand,  with  a  ring  on  the  forefinger,  holds  his  girdle.  His 
left  hand,  gloved  and  holding  the  second  glove,  rests  on  a  stone  plinth. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

Signed  on  the  plinth  : — "ticianvs.  f." 

3  ft.  3^  in.  X  2  ft.  11  in.     (1-00  X  089.)  , 


THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL  71 

sunburnt  arm  of  Joseph  of  Arimathsea ;  it  is  significant  of  the  art 
of  Venice. 

At  an  interval  of  about  eight  years  we  come  to  the  St.  Jerome 
(No.  1585),  a  religious  scene  set,  curiously  enough,  in  a  moonlight 
landscape,  which  has  darkened.  The  exact  interpretation  to  be 
placed  upon  the  Allegory  in  honour  of  Alfonso  d'Avalos  (No.  1589), 
of  about  1533,  has  been  much  discussed ;  it  is  supposed  to  repre- 
sent Alfonso  bidding  farewell  to  his  wife  on  his  departure  for  the 
wars,  and  entrusting  her  to  the  safe  keeping  of  Chastity,  Cupid, 
who  bears  a  sheaf  of  arrows,  and  a  third  figure.  The  Portrait  of 
Francis  I.  (No.  1588),  whom  Titian  never  saw,  appears  to  have 
been  painted  about  1536  from  a  medal,  and  represents  the  King 
in  profile.  Fran9ois  i.  died  in  1547.  It  belongs  to  the  same 
period  as  the  Portrait  of  a  Man  in  Damasc&ned  Armour  with  a  Page 
holding  his  Helmet  in  the  collection  of  Count  Potocki.  Another 
portrait,  painted  about  1543,  represents  a  Man  with  a  Black  Beard 
resting  his  Hand  mi  the  Ledge  of  a  Pilaster  (No,  1593).  By  this 
time  Titian's  art  was  rapidly  maturing,  as  we  see  from  his 
magnificent  and  imposing  Supper  at  Emmaus  (No.  1581)  of  the 
same  year.  It  had  passed  from  Mantua  to  England  before  being 
acquired  by  that  excellent  connoisseur,  Jabach.  It  is  said  to  be 
signed  Ticianus  f.,  while  the  Christ  Crowned  with  Thorns  (No. 
1583),  which  was  painted  for  a  church  in  Milan  about  1550,  is 
inscribed  titianvs  f.  When  Charles  i.,  as  Prince  of  Wales, 
visited  Madrid  in  1623,  he  was  presented  with  the  Jupiter  and 
Antiope  (No.  1587),  which  has  the  alternative  title  of  the  Venus 
del  Par  do.  It  had  been  painted  for  Philip  ii.,  and  had  already 
escaped  the  fire  which  broke  out  in  the  Prado.  Jabach  acquired 
it  for  600  guineas,  and  passed  it  on  to  Cardinal  Mazarin,  fi?om 
whom  it  was  acquired  for  10,000  limes  tournms  by  Louis  xiv.  It 
escaped  destruction  by  fire  in  the  Old  Louvre  in  1661.  It  has 
been  very  much  repainted  fi-om  time  to  time. 


72  THE  LOUVRE 

TITIAN'S   FOLLOWERS 

The  Madonna  and  Child,  with  St.  Catherine  {?  St.  Agnes\ 
and  St.  John  the  Baptist  as  a  Child  (No.  1579),  which  has  been 
enlarged  by  the  addition  of  a  strip  of  canvas  down  the  left  side, 
contains  a  glimpse  of  the  country  near  Pieve  di  Cadore,  the  native 
place  of  Titian.  Fourteen  of  the  twenty  pictures  here  officially 
credited  to  him  are  to  be  regarded  as  authentic.  Polidoro 
Lanzani  (1515  ?-1565),  an  imitator  of  Titian,  however,  painted  the 
Holy  Familt/  with  St.  John  ihe  Baptist  (No.  1580),  and  the  Holy 
Family  cmd  Saints  (No.  1596)  in  the  La  Caze  Room ;  while  Andrea 
Meldolla  (Schiavone),  who  was  a  pupil  of  Titian,  no  doubt  executed 
the  £cce  Homo  (No.  1582)  credited  to  the  great  Venetian  artist, 
as  weU  as  the  St.  John  ihe  Baptist  (No.  1524)  which  is  rightly 
assigned  to  him. 

The  Grerman  padnter  Johan  Stephan  von  Calcar,  who  to 
Italian  biographers  is  known  as  Giovanni  Calcar  (1499-1546),  was 
a  pupil  of  Titian.  He  painted  the  imposing  Portrait  of  a  Man 
(No.  1185).  He  is  seen  at  half  length  standing,  and  holding  a 
letter  in  his  right  hand ;  his  left  hand  to  his  waist.  On  a  column 
in  the  background  is  painted  the  coat  of  arms,  reputed  to  be  that 
of  the  Buono  family  of  Venice,  which  is  repeated  on  the  bezel  ot 
the  ring  on  the  foreHnger  of  his  left  hand.  Below  his  right 
hand  is  the  inscription: 

ANNO   1540 
.£TATIS   26. 

Paris  Bordone  (1500-1570),  who  "painted  women  with  more 
of  an  eye  on  the  fashion-plate  than  on  the  expression  of  their 
features,"  is  not  the  author  of  a  Portrait  of  a  Lady  (No.  1180a), 
nor  of  the  Portrait  of  a  Man  and  a  Child  (No.  1180),  which  seems 
to  be  a  Flemish  rather  than  a  Venetian  picture.     His  Vertwnnua 


THE  VEWBTIAN  SCHOOL  73 

and  Porruma  (No.  1178)  i«  lean  repreaentative  than  hia  Port/raU 
(80  called)  of  Jermimo  Croft  (No.  1179).  It  takes  it»  title  from 
the  inscription,  ^' SpSH.  Domino  Jeromrao  Orofft  .  .  .  Magior  guo 
temper  dbsero  ,  ,  .  Augiida"  which  is  written  on  the  letter  held  in 
the  right  hand 

The  last  djdng  echo  of  the  "fire"  and  poetry  of  Giorgione  is 
seen  in  some  of  the  works  of  BonifSEudo  Veronese  (1487-1553),  who 
was  also  a  pupil  of  Palma.  Boni^EUsio  is  now  regarded  as  a  single 
individual,  althon^  formerly  the  varying  differences  in  his  style 
of  painting  led  certain  critics  to  regard  him  as  three  different  mem- 
bers of  the  same  family.  The  varied  grouping  seen  in  the  large 
canvas  entitled  Holy  Family,  with  8t.  Francis,  St.  Antfumy,  St. 
Mary  Magdalene,  St.  Elizafjeth,  an/1  St.  John  tfis  BajAAat  (No.  1171), 
and  the  colouring  of  this  canvas,  seem  to  prove  its  authenticity. 
The  smaller  picture  of  a  Holy  Family  (No.  1172),  with  a  similar 
pedigree  and  a  Greek  inscription,  which  includes  the  same  shunts,  is 
a  mediocre  work.  The  Madonna  and  Cfdld,  with  St.  Joseph,  St.  John 
the  Bapitigt,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Ursula  (No.  1674d)  is  a  poor  picture. 

From  the  studio  of  Bonifazio  issued  Jacopo  BassMio  (1510  ?> 
1592),  whose  Vintage  (No.  1428)  shows  his  predilection  for  introduc- 
ing animals  and  kneeling  peasants  into  genre  pictures,  the  treatment 
of  which  is  apt  to  be  rugged  This  did  not  prevent  his  at  times 
painting  striking  and  vigorous  portraits.  The  Louvre  contains  a 
good  example  of  this  branch  of  his  art  in  the  Portrait  of  Giovanni 
da  Bologna  (No.  1429),  which  is  at  present  not  exhibited  Tfte 
Animals  entering  the  Ark  (No.  1423),  Moses  striking  ifie  Rock  (No. 
1424),  Cana  of  GaLilee  (No.  1425),  C%rist  hmHng  His  Cross  (No.  1426), 
and  the  Descent  from  Uie  Cross  (No.  1427)  are  also  credited  to  hin^ 
in  the  Catalogue. 

Leandro  Bassano  (1558-1623),  his  son,  is  represented  in  the 
La  Gaze  collection  by  an  Adoration  of  Uie  Magi  (No.  1430)  and 
a  Rustic  Lahaur  (No.  1431). 

to 


74  THE  LOUVRE 

The  vigorous,  ambitious  and  late  Venetian  painter  Tintoretto 
(1518-1594),  who  painted  portrait-groups,  religious  subjects,  and 
mythological  compositions  on  a  large  scale,  and  brought  his  achieve- 
ments to  completion  with  extraordinary  rapidity,  is  not  adequately 
represented  in  this  Gallery,  in  which,  however,  no  fewer  than 
eleven  works  pass  under  his  name.  His  Busanna  and  the  Elders 
(No.  1464)  testifies  to  the  increasing  frequency  with  which  painters 
or  their  patrons  at  that  period  preferred  the  representation  of 
sensational  incidents  from  the  Apocrypha.  The  subject  is  un- 
attractive, but  the  picture,  which  is  in  a  very  dirty  state,  is 
wonderfully  painted. 

The  Paradise  (No.  1465)  is  but  a  preliminary  sketch  for  the 
colossal  painting,  measuring  84  ft.  x  34  ft., — the  largest  oil-painting 
by  an  old  master  in  existence, — which  Tintoretto  painted  for  the 
end  wall  of  the  Sala  del  Maggior  Consiglio  in  the  Doge's  Palace 
at  Venice.  The  Portrait  of  a  Man  holding  a  Handkerchief  in  his 
Hand  (No.  1467)  reveals  his  great  power  as  a  portrait  painter. 

The  Portrait  of  Pietro  Mocenigo  (No.  1470),  signed  petrus 
MOCENio  SENATOR,  and  the  Portrait  of  a  Venetian  Senator  (No. 
1471),  inscribed  anno  ^tatis  lvii  mvii  iacomo  tentoreto  .  f,  are 
among  the  pictures  of  the  La  Gaze  collection. 

In  Room  XV.,  which  is  given  up  to  self-portraits  by  artists, 
hangs  a  picture  which  passes  as  an  authentic  Portrait  of  Tintoretto 
(No.  1466)  by  himself  It  is  inscribed  jacobvs  tentoretvs  pictoi 
venbti^s  and  ipsivs.  f. 


PAOLO  VERONESE 

The  harmonious  colour,  the  sense  of  material  magnificence,  and 
the  masterly  draughtsmanship  of  Paolo  Veronese  (1528-1588)  are 
seen  to  the  greatest  advantage  in  his  Marriage  at  Cana  (No.  1192). 
He  signed   a  contract  in  June  1562,  to  paint  this  large  picture. 


PLATE   XIII.— TITIAN 

(1489  M576) 

venp:tian  school 

No.  1584.— THE  ENTOMBMENT 
(La  Mise  au  Tonibeaxi) 

The  dead  liody  of  the  Christ  is  borne  on  a  white  cloth  by  Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathgea. 
Nicodenuis  is  seen  from  the  back  wearing  a  pale  red  tunic  and  a  parti-coloured  scarf ;  Josepli  of 
Arimatlifea  in  green  robes  is  in  profile  towards  the  right.  St.  John  in  a  red  robe  supports  the  right 
arm  of  the  Christ.  To  the  left  St.  Mary  Magdalene,  with  her  arms  around  the  Virgin,  gazes  in  profound 
grief  at  the  Christ.     The  Virgin  with  clasped  hands  bends  forward  to  look  at  her  Son. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

4  ft  lOj  in.  X  7  ft.  1  in.     (1-48  x  2-15.) 


THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL  75 

which  measures  21  ft.  x32  ft.,  for  the  refectory  of  San  Giorgio 
Maggiore  at  Venice,  and  completed  it  by  September  8,  1563. 
According  to  the  agreement,  Paolo  was  to  receive  324  ducats, 
a  sum  equal  to-day  to  about  £200 ;  to  be  fed  during  the  time  he 
was  engaged  on  the  work ;  to  be  repaid  the  cost  of  the  materials ; 
and  to  receive  a  pipe  of  wine.  The  picture  was  seized  by  Napoleon 
during  his  victorious  campaign  of  1797,  and  brought  by  road 
to  Paris.  In  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  Peace  of  Campo 
Formio  of  1814,  it  should  have  been  returned.  As  it  had  proved 
a  very  difficult  matter  to  take  it  to  Paris,  where  it  had  to  go 
into  the  restorer's  hands,  the  French  urged  that  it  was  too 
vast  and  too  dilapidated  to  bear  a  second  journey.  Astonishing 
as  it  may  seem  to  us  to-day,  the  Italians  accepted  the  suggestion 
and  in  exchange  took  Charles  Le  Brun's  large  but  mediocre 
Magdalene  at  the  Feet  of  Jesus,  perhaps  because  it  measured 
12  ft.  6  in.  X 10  ft.  4  in.  Le  Brun's  picture  now  hangs  in  the 
Venice  Gallery  (No.  377),  the  Catalogue  of  which  pointedly  remarks 
that  "the  exchange  is  much  to  be  regretted." 

Paolo  Veronese's  masterly  work  contains  no  devotional  feeling. 
The  Scriptural  story  merely  serves  as  a  pretext  for  depicting  a  scene 
of  Venetian  festivity  and  material  magnificence  with  imposing 
architectural  background.  The  grouping  of  the  figures  is  varied, 
dexterously  disposed  and  stately,  while  the  colour  is  harmonious 
and  sparkling.  The  changing  of  the  water  into  wine  is,  however, 
merely  incidental.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  a  work  of  this 
description,  in  which  Art  in  Venice  begins  to  trick  herself  out  in 
meretricious  embellishments,  should  have  been  regarded  as  a  seemly 
decoration  for  the  refectory  of  a  convent.  An  additional  but  frankly 
worldly  interest  is  imparted  to  the  work  by  the  introduction  of 
a  portrait  of  Alfonso  d'Avalos  (whose  portrait  by  Titian  we  have 
already  seen)  as  the  bridegroom,  on  the  extreme  left  of  the 
composition ;  to  his  left  is  the  bride,  with  the  features  of  Eleonora 


76  THE  LOUVRE 

of  Austria.  The  other  figures  include  Fran9ois  i.,  dressed  in  blue 
and  wearing  a  curious  headdress ;  Mary  of  England,  sister  of 
Henry  viii,  and  widow  of  Louis  xii.,  in  yellow  ;  the  Sultan  Soliman, 
in  green,  at  the  side  of  a  negro  prince  who  addresses  a  servant. 
On  the  left  of  the  next  figure  sits  Vittoria  Colonna,  whom  Michel- 
angelo described  as  "a  man  within  a  woman,"  plying  her  tooth- 
pick !  At  the  end  of  the  table,  speaking  to  a  servant,  is  the 
Emperor  Charles  v.,  seen  in  profile  and  wearing  the  Order  of 
the  Golden  Fleece.  The  introduction  of  the  fool  with  the  bells 
in  the  centre  of  the  picture  is  perhaps  intended  to  express  the 
pomp  and  pleasure  of  the  world  pursued  without  thought  of 
Christ,  who,  however,  occupies  the  place  of  honour  in  the  centre 
of  the  composition.  The  couple  of  dogs  in  leash,  one  gnawing 
a  bone,  and  a  cat,  lying  on  her  back  as  she  scratches  at  one  of 
the  vases  which  hold  the  wine  on  the  right  of  the  composition, 
may  stand  for  merely  brutal  nature. 

The  painter's  personal  interest  in  the  scene  is  depicted  in 
the  group  of  four  artists  in  the  foreground.  Paolo  himself  is 
playing  a  viol ;  just  behind  him  is  Tintoretto  with  a  similar 
instrument ;  while  on  the  right  are  Titian,  in  red  with  a  bass 
viol,  and  Bassano  playing  the  flute.  The  theory  put  forward  by 
Mr.  Herbert  Cook  that  Titian  was  born  as  late  as  1489,  and  so 
would  be  seventy-four  years  old  in  1562-63,  the  year  in  which 
this  picture  was  painted,  certainly  seems  to  find  corroboration  in 
the  features  here  given  to  Titian  by  Paolo  Veronese.  He  certainly 
does  not  look  eighty-seven  years  of  age,  as  he  should  do  if  he 
had  been  born  as  early  as  1476. 

In  the  Catalogue  sixteen  pictures  are  assigned  to  Paolo 
Veronese.  The  Portrait  of  a  Lady  and  a  Child  playing  with  a  Dog 
(No.  1199)  is  an  early  work.  The  Disciples  at  Emmaus  (No.  1196), 
which  is  signed  "paolo  Veronese,"  is  another  of  the  master's 
imposing  canvases,  as  also  is  the  Feast  in  the  House  of  Simon  the 


THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL  11 

Pharisee  (No.  1193),  which  was  presented  to  Louis  xiv.  by  the 
Venetian  Republic  in  1665,  and  was  for  many  years  hung  at 
Versailles.  This  artist  is  also  officially  credited  with  the  Burning 
of  Sodmi  (No.  1187),  a  Holy  Family,  with  St.  George,  St.  Catherine, 
and  a  Male  Donor  (No.  1190),  a  Holy  Family,  with  St.  Elizabeth 
and  St.  Mary  Magdalene,  and  a  Female  Donor  (No.  1191),  a  Christ 
healing  Peter's  Wife's  Mother  (No.  1191a),  a  Christ  fainting  under 
the  weight  of  the  Cross  (No.  1194),  a  Calvary  (No.  1195),  and  an  Esther 
fainting  before  Ahasuerus  (No.  1189).  The  Susan  and  the  Elders  (No. 
1188)  is  a  replica  of  a  picture  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire.  The  St.  Mark  crowning  the  Theological  Virtues  (No. 
1197),  and  the  Jupiter  hurling  Thunderbolts  on  Criminals  (No.  1198), 
were  originally  executed  as  ceiling  paintings  for  the  Doge's  Palace. 
The  Christ  with  the  Terrestrial  Globe  (No.  1200)  and  the  Portrait 
of  a  Lady  in  Black  (No.  1201)  are  only  studio  pictures. 

Little  artistic  ability  is  shown  in  the  empty  abstractions,  and 
at  times  meaningless  productions,  of  many  of  the  late  sixteenth, 
seventeenth,  and  eighteenth  century  Venetian  artists.  Felice  Riccio 
(II  Brusasorci  the  Younger)  (1540-1605)  is  given  as  the  painter  of  a 
Holy  Family  (No.  1463) ;  Alessandro  Turchi  (Orbetto)  (1582-1648) 
of  three  pictures  (Nos.  1558-1560) ;  Sebastiano  Ricci  (1659  ?-l734) 
of  four  compositions  (Nos.  1458-1461) ;  Antonio  Pellegrino  (1675- 
1741)  of  an  Allegwy  (No.  1413) ;  Alessandro  Varotari  (1590-1650) 
of  an  utterly  uninspired  Venus  and  Cupid  (No.  1574) ;  and  Pietro 
della  Vecchia  (1605-1678)  of  a  duU  Pcyrtrait  of  a  Man  (No.  1576). 

A  century  later  than  the  stupendous  achievements  of  Tintoretto 
and  Veronese  the  art  of  Venice  had  passed  into  decliue,  but  a 
glimmer  of  the  genius  that  had  found  expression  in  the  gorgeously 
decorative  art  in  Venice  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  yet  to  be 
reflected  in  the  work  of  Giovanni  Battista  Tiepolo  (1692-1769), 
His  Last  Supper  (No.  1547)  was  purchased  for  £400  in  1877, 
and  his  sketch  for  the  Triumph  of  Religion  (No.  1549a)  for  £1200 


78  THE  LOUVRE 

in  1903.  By  him  also  is  the  Banner  (No.  1549),  depicting  on  the 
one  side  St.  Martin  saying  Mass,  and  on  the  other  The  Madonna 
and  Child.  An  Apparition  of  the  Virgin  to  8t.  Jerome  (No.  1548) 
is  one  of  the  less  striking  pictures  in  the  La  Caze  collection. 

Another  decorative  painter  was  Antonio  Canale,  generally 
known  as  Canaletto  (1697-1768),  who  is  well  represented  in  the 
View  of  the  Church  of  Santa  Maria  delta  Salute  and  the  Grand 
Canal  (No.  1203).  The  Louvre  appears  to  contain  nothing  by 
Bernardo  Bellotto  (1720-1780),  who  is  sometimes  referred  to  as 
Canaletto,  and  is  seen  to  the  best  advantage  at  Dresden. 

Canaletto's  pupil,  Francesco  Guardi  (1712-1793),  who  was  bom 
of  Austrian  parentage,  is  the  painter  of  seven  Venetian  scenes : 
After  wedding  the  Adriatic,  the  Doge  embarks  at  the  Lido  on  the 
"  Bucentaur"  (No.  1328);  The  Doge  proceeds  to  S.  Maria  delta 
Salute  to  commemorate  the  Preservation  of  Venice  from  the  Plague  in 
1630  (No.  1329) ;  Fete  du  Jeudi  Gras  in  the  Piazzetta  (No.  1330) ; 
The  Procession  of  Corpus  Domini  in  the  Piazza  of  S.  Marco  (No. 
1331) ;  The  Visit  of  the  Doge  to  the  Church  of  S.  Zaccharia  on  Easter 
Day  (No.  1332) ;  The  Doge  seated  on  his  Throne  in  the  Sola  del 
Collegio  (No.  1333) ;  Coronation  of  the  Doge  (No.  1334) ;  and  a  View 
of  the  Church  of  S.  Maria  delta  Salute  (No.  1335).  Guardi's  pupil, 
Fran9ois  Casanova  (1739-1805),  a  painter  of  battle-pieces,  worked 
in  France ;  some  of  his  pictures  are  hung  in  the  French  Rooms. 

With  Guardi  we  close  the  chapter  of  Venetian  art  which, 
owing  to  four  centuries  of  high  aspiration  and  magnificent  achieve- 
ment, came  to  an  end  later  than  the  art  of  any  other  school  of 
painting  in  Italy. 


THE  PADUAN  SCHOOL 

FAR-REACHING  influences  were  to  be  exerted  by  classical 
Padua  on  the  art  of  the  neighbouring  cities  of  Northern 
Italy.  Padua  was  a  city  of  great  antiquity,  and  had 
been  sufficiently  powerful  and  prosperous  even  in  Roman  times 
to  excite  the  cupidity  of  its  enemies.  Eventually  the  Goths  and 
other  barbarian  hordes  had  destroyed  its  monuments  of  the 
Roman  age ;  the  spirit  of  antiquity,  nevertheless,  survived  until 
Giotto  came  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century  to 
decorate  the  walls  of  the  Chapel  of  the  Madonna  dell'  Arena, 
which  had  been  founded  in  1303  by  Enrico  Scrovegno  on  the  site 
of  an  ancient  Roman  arena.  These  very  precious  frescoes  by 
Giotto,  which  fortunately  are  stiU  preserved,  revolutionised  art, 
and  the  movement  initiated  by  him  quickened  the  art-life  of  this 
University  city. 

Half  a  century  later,  Altichiero  Altichieri  (fl.  1320-1385) 
developed  his  art  under  the  influence  of  Giotto,  and  beautified  the 
churches  of  Padua  with  frescoes,  the  figures  in  which  he  clothed 
in  fanciful  attire.  An  art  movement  was  now  on  foot,  and  the 
influence  of  Altichieri,  who  was  later  to  become  the  founder  of 
the  school  of  Verona,  was  to  be  revealed  in  the  work  of  his 
follower  PisaneUo,  the  Veronese  painter  and  medallist. 

The  long  residence  in  Padua  of  Donatello  (1386-1466),  the 
great  Florentine  sculptor,  and  the  erection  of  his  famous  equestrian 
statue  of  Gattamelata  initiated  in  Padua  the  Renaissance  move- 
ment, which  soon  took  deep  root  in  this  ancient  city.  The  example 
of  Donatello  in  sculpture  before  long  brought  about  the  foundation 

79 


80  THE  LOUVRE 

of  a  local  school  of  painting  which  was  rapidly  developed  through 
the  shrewd  commonsense  rather  than  the  artistic  achievements 
of  Francesco  Squarcione  (1394-1474).  It  is  noteworthy  that 
Squarcione  had  travelled  in  the  East,  and  had  there  formed  a 
collection  of  antique  works  of  plastic  art  which  became  the  basis 
of  his  art-teaching. 

One  of  the  numerous  pupils  of  Squarcione  was  Gregorio 
Schiavone  ("The  Slavonian")  (fl.  1440-1470),  a  native  of  Dabnatia, 
who  in  the  studio  of  his  Paduan  master  met  Andrea  Mantegna. 
The  Louvre  authorities  with  some  hesitancy  attribute  to  Schiavone 
a  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1523).  Although  it  is  hardly  by  him, 
it  exhibits  some  of  the  characteristics  of  Schiavone,  who  was  fond 
of  decorating  his  pictures  with  festoons  of  flowers  and  fruit  in 
much  the  same  way  that  his  Venetian  contemporary,  Carlo  Crivelli, 
delighted  to  adorn  his  large  panel  pictures. 


ANDREA  MANTEGNA 

Andrea  Mantegna  (1431-1506)  was  adopted  at  the  age  of  ten  by 
Squarcione,  and  so  naturally  became  his  pupil.  No  better  training 
could  have  been  chosen  for  the  boy,  who  had  a  natural  taste  for  the 
classics,  proof  of  which  is  further  afforded  by  the  Latin  inscriptions 
on  his  pictures.  Andrea  seems  to  have  quickly  realised  the  con- 
nection between  the  traditions  of  Paduan  antiquities  and  the 
classical  models  of  ancient  Greece  which  his  adoptive  father 
Squarcione  had  brought  home  with  him  from  his  travels.  Andrea 
in  time  became  deeply  impressed  with  the  methods  of  Jacopo 
Bellini,  whose  daughter  Niccolosia  he  married  in  1453,  to  the 
great  displeasure  of  Squarcione.  Another  powerful  influence  on 
Mantegna  may  be  traced  to  the  bronzes  which  Donatello  executed 
for  the  Church  of  Sant'  Antonio  of  Padua  in  that  city. 

After  painting  the  frescoes  in  the  Church  of  the  Eremitani  at 


PLATE  XIV.— ANDREA   MANTEGNA 
(1431-1506) 

PADUAN  SCHOOL 

No.  1375.— PARNASSUS 
(Le  Pamasse) 

On  the  summit  of  an  arcTied  rock  stand  Mars  and  Venus  before  a  draped  bed  backed  by  orange  trees. 
To  the  left  is  Cupid,  while  Vulcan  stands  before  his  forge.  Below,  to  the  extreme  left,  Apollo  plays  his  lyre 
to  the  strains  of  wliich  the  Muses  dance.  To  the  right  Mercury,  wearing  the  petasus  and  talaria  and  carrying 
the  caduceus,  leans  against  Pegasus.     Landscape  background. 

Painted  in  tempera  on  canvas. 

5  ft.  3  in.  X  6  ft.  3^  in.    (160  x  1-92.) 


THE  PADUAN  SCHOOL  81 

Padua,  Andrea  in  1457  executed  a  large  and  striking  altarpiece  for 
the  Church  of  San  Zeno  in  Verona.  It  was  removed  by  Napoleon's 
agents  to  France  in  1797,  but  only  the  principal  panel  was 
returned  to  that  church  in  1815.  The  three  predella  panels  were 
retained  in  France.  The  centre  one  of  these,  depicting  the  Calvary, 
is  now  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1373) ;  the  other  two,  representing 
the  Agony  in  the  Garden  and  the  Resurrection,  have  long  hung  in 
the  Museum  at  Tours.  The  severity  of  the  statuesque  figures  and 
the  certainty  of  the  drawing  seen  in  the  Calvary  are  characteristic 
of  the  early  period  of  the  master. 

Mantegna  now  removed  to  Mantua,  where  he  entered  the 
service  of  Lodovico  ii.,  Marquis  of  Mantua,  as  his  Court  Painter, 
remaining  there  for  the  rest  of  his  life.  The  Madonna  of  Victory  (No. 
1374)  was  painted  to  commemorate  the  victory  gained  at  the  Pass 
of  Fornovo  on  the  Taro  on  July  6,  1495,  by  Giovanni  Francesco  iii., 
Marquis  of  Mantua,  over  Charles  viii.  of  France.  In  the  centre 
of  the  picture  the  Madonna  and  Child  are  enthroned.  On  the 
left  kneels  the  Marquis,  and  on  the  right  is  St.  Elizabeth,  the 
patron  saint  of  Gonzaga's  wife,  Isabella  d'Este,  "at  the  sound  of 
whose  name  all  the  Muses  rise  and  do  reverence."  St.  Michael 
standing  behind  the  Duke,  and  St.  George  behind  St.  Elizabeth, 
hold  the  robe  of  the  Madonna,  who  is  thus  represented  as  taking 
under  her  protection  the  two  principal  figures.  In  the  background 
on  the  left  is  St.  Andrew,  name-saint  of  the  painter  and  one  of 
the  patrons  of  Mantua.  On  the  right  is  St.  Longinus  with  the 
spear  with  which  he  pierced  the  side  of  Christ.  His  relics  were 
preserved  in  the  Church  of  St.  Andrea  in  Mantua.  The  garlands 
of  flowers  and  festoons  of  fruit  are  a  well-known  device  in 
Mantegna's  pictures. 

Mantegna's  Parnassus  (No.  1375,  Plate  XIV.)  illustrates  the 
amours  of  Mars  and  Venus,  which  were  discovered  by  her  husband, 
Vulcan.     In  the  foreground  the  Muses  are  dancing.     The  group  of 


82  THE  LOUVRE 

the  Muses  was  afterwards  appropriated  by  Giulio  Romano  for  his 
Dance  of  Apollo  and  the  Muses  in  the  Pitti  Palace  at  Florence. 
This  painting  was  executed  in  1497,  just  before  the  coming  of  the 
Renaissance  feeling  into  Venetian  art  and  the  representation  of 
classical  myth.  Notice  the  excellently  drawn  and  highly  charac- 
teristic shells  and  stones  placed  in  the  foreground.  In  the  same 
year  Mantegna  painted  the  Triumph  of  Wisdom  and  Virtus  over  the 
Vices  (No.  1376),  the  last  of  the  four  pictures  by  him  in  this  Gallery. 
In  the  corner  to  the  extreme  left  is  Virtus  Deserta,  who  appears 
under  the  guise  of  a  laurel  tree  with  a  woman's  head ;  about  the 
stem  is  wound  a  scroll  with  inscriptions  in  Latin,  Greek,  and 
Hebrew,     The  Latin  inscription  reads : 

AGITE    PELLITE    SEDIBUS    NOSTRIS 
FAEDA    HAEC    VICI0R\^    MONSTRA 
VIRTUTVM    COELITVS    AD    NOS    REDE^TIVM 

and  on  the  inside  of  the  scroll : 

DrVAE   COMIXES. 

This  painting  formerly  decorated  the  camerino  of  Isabella  d'Este  at 
Mantua.  It  was  seized  at  the  sack  of  Mantua  by  Cardinal 
Richelieu  in  1630,  together  with  the  Parnassus  (No.  1375),  Perugino's 
Combat  of  Love  and  Chastity  (No.  1567),  and  Lorenzo  Costa's  Court 
of  Isabella  d'Este  (No.  1261).  The  Mythological  Scene  (No.  1262),  which 
is  not  now  exhibited,  represents  the  Realm  of  Erotic  Love ;  it  was 
begun  by  Mantegna  the  year  he  died,  and  was  gone  over  and  com- 
pleted by  Lorenzo  Costa. 

Mantegna  became  involved  financially  towards  the  end  of  his 
life,  and  the  collection  he  had  formed  was  sold.  His  last  years 
were  clouded  by  pecuniary  embarrassment.  His  compositions  are 
essentially  classic  in  spirit,  his  figures  noble  and  painted  in  imitation 
of  the  antique,  while  his  pagan  conceptions  prepared  the  way  for 


THE  PADUAN  SCHOOL  83 

those  of  a  later  generation  in  the  art  of  Venice.  By  this  process  of 
gradual  evolution  the  school  of  Padua  came  to  be  distinguished 
among  the  other  local  schools  of  Northern  Italy  in  the  lifetime  of 
Mantegna,  whose  example  gave  a  new  impulse  to  contemporary  art. 

A  small  Adoration  of  the  Magi  (No.  1678),  which  is  officially 
unattributed,  is  regarded  by  Mr.  Berenson  as  the  work  of  Bernardo 
Parenzano  (1437-1531),  who  was  influenced  by  Mantegna,  and 
imitated  the  methods  of  his  contemporaries. 

Many  other  artists  bore  their  part  in  the  work  of  this  school, 
and  so  contributed  to  the  development  of  this  movement  which 
spread  to  Veronese  and  Venetian  territory.  They  are,  however, 
unrepresented  in  the  Louvre. 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  VERONA 

THE  foundations  of  the  art  of  Verona  were  laid  in  Paduan 
soil  by  Altichieri,  who  initiated  the  school  of  Verona. 
Veronese  art  early  found  expression  in  the  naive  pictorial 
and  mediaeval  style  practised  by  the  medallist-painter  Antonio 
Pisanello  (1397-1455),  whose  name  appears  to  have  been  an  endearing 
diminutive.  He  was  a  follower,  if  not  a  pupil,  of  Altichieri.  The 
frequency  with  which  he  signed  himself  "  pictor  "  on  his  medals  leads 
one  to  suppose  that  he  looked  upon  himself  as  a  painter  first  and 
foremost,  and  contemporary  records  seem  to  confirm  this.  His  art 
was  so  highly  reputed  in  Northern  Italy  that  the  Venetians  thought 
it  advisable  to  invite  him  to  Venice  in  1421  to  assist  Gentile  da 
Fabriano  in  painting  frescoes,  now  destroyed,  in  the  Doge's  Palace. 

Jacopo  Bellini  also  worked  at  Verona.  He  is  known  to  have 
painted  a  picture  of  the  Grudfixion  for  the  Chapel  of  S.  Niccol6  in 
the  Cathedral  at  Verona  in  1436,  but,  after  exercising  consider- 
able influence  on  the  art  of  Northern  Italy,  it  was  in  1759  hewn 
down  by  a  Canon  with  a  view  to  beautifying  the  chapel! 

Unfortunately,  there  are  only  two  frescoes  from  the  hand  of 
Pisanello  at  Verona,  while  no  more  than  four  authentic  easel  paint- 
ings by  him  are  known  to  exist,  two  of  them  being  in  the  National 
Gallery.  He  is  known  to  have  travelled  extensively  in  Italy, 
and  to  have  worked  also  at  Mantua,  Ferrara,  and  Rimini.  The 
traditions  of  mediaeval  chivalry  and  the  pictorial  parade  of  pomp 
and  mundane  realism  which  are  reflected  in  his  work  show  that  his 
contemporaries  were  justified  in  the  high  esteem  in  which  they 
held  him. 

8s 


86  THE  LOUVRE 

Pisanello's  love  of  depicting  birds  and  animals  is  shown  in  his 
two  pictures  in  the  National  Gallery,  but  in  the  Portrait  of  a  Princess 
of  the  JEste  Family  (No.  1422a,  or  No.  1422  Bis)  he  is  shown  to  have 
been  a  lover  of  flowers  also.     This  small  panel  was  formerly  attri- 
buted to  Piero  dei  Franceschi,  the  Umbrian  artist.     For  many  years 
it  hung  among  the  Drawings,  being  apparently  considered  unworthy 
of  a  place  in  its  proper  environment,  among  the  Italian  primitive 
paintings,  where  it  is  now  hung.     It  was  purchased  in  1893  out  of 
the  Felix   Bamberg  collection.     The  lady  is  seen  in  profile  to  the 
left.     Her  hair  is   dressed  according  to  the  fashion  of  the  period, 
the  front  hair  being  plucked  out  to  render  the  forehead  round  and 
high,  while  the  nape  of  her  neck  for  the   same  reason  is   hairless. 
She  wears  a  white  dress  with  loose-falling  red  sleeves ;  a  sprig  of 
juniper  {ginevra)  is  let  into  her  dress  just  above  the  left  shoulder. 
It  has  been  assumed  from  this  that  we  here   have   a  Portrait  of 
Ginevra  d'Este.     She  was  the  daughter  of  Niccol6  ii.  d'Este  by  his 
second  wife,  the  infamous  and  ill-treated  Parisina  Malatesta,  who 
was  decapitated  in  1425.     Ginevra  (1419-1440)  became  the  wife  of 
Sigismondo   Malatesta,   Lord   of  Rimini,  in    1433,  and   died   three 
years  later.     The  background  is  composed  of  pinks  and  columbines, 
among    which    fly    four    highly    decorative   butterflies.      The   em- 
broidery  on   the   left   sleeve   of  the  dress  is   patterned  with   the 
impresa  of  a  crystal  vase  set  round  with  pearls.     It  is  interesting 
to  note  that  Ginevra's  husband,  Sigismondo,  is  probably  the  Donor 
in  the  Madonna  and  Child  and  a  Kneeling  Donor  (No.   1159a  or 
No.    1279)   by   Jacopo    Bellini    which    hangs    next   to    it    on    the 
left.     The  only  other  painted  portrait  by  Pisanello  known  is  the 
later,  and  larger,  one  of  Leonello  d'Este  in  the  Bergamo  Gallery. 

Bono  da  Ferrara  (fl.  1450-1461)  was  a  pupil  of  Pisanello,  and 
Oriolo  (fl.  1450)  was  a  follower  of  his ;  their  pictures  are  extremely 
rare.  The  Louvre  contains  no  picture  by  Liberale  da  Verona  (1451- 
1536),  a  master  who  had  many  pupils,  among  whom  may  be  included 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  VERONA  87 

Girolamo  dai  Libri  (1474-1556)  and  Francesco  Caroto  (1470-1546). 
The  Madonna  and  Child  and  St.  John  the  Baptist  (No.  1318),  which 
is  officially  catalogued  under  the  name  of  Girolamo,  has  long  been 
held  to  be  by  Caroto. 

Domenico  Brusasorci  ("The  Rat-burner")  (1494-1567)  was  the 
father  of  Felice  Riccio  and  a  pupil  of  Caroto.  He  has  been 
claimed  as  the  author  of  the  Madonna  and  St.  Martina  (No. 
1163),  which  passes  in  the  Catalogue  as  being  by  the  very  late 
Roman  painter  Pietro  Berretini  da  Cortona  (1596-1669).  Other 
versions  of  this  composition,  representing  St.  Martina  triumphing 
over  the  Idols,  are  known.  A  large  number  of  the  prominent 
Veronese  painters  are  unrepresented  in  this  collection,  but  the 
influence  of  Liberale  is  frequently  seen.  The  Council  of  Trent 
(No.  1586)  may  be  assigned  to  Paolo  Farinati,  although  it  is 
regarded  by  the  authorities  as  coming  from  the  hand  of  Titian. 
By  the  time  that  Farinati  died,  art  in  Verona  had  passed  into 
decline. 

One  of  the  most  decorative  painters  in  Italy  in  the  sixteenth 
century  was  Paolo  Veronese,  who  although  a  native  of  Verona  spent 
the  best  years  of  his  life  in  Venice.  He  is  usually  included  among 
the  artists  of  Venice. 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  FERRARA 

ACCORDING  to  tradition  the  most  famous  artist  in  the 
school  of  Ferrara  before  Tura  was  Ettore  de'  Bonacossi, 
of  whom  little  is  known. 

At  Ferrara,  the  city  of  the  Este  family,  as  at  all  the  Italian 
courts,  the  art  of  painting  was  liberally  patronised.  All  Ferrarese 
art  was  more  or  less  Paduan  both  in  origin  and  style,  Cosimo  Tura 
(1430  ?-1495),  the  founder  of  this  school,  having  worked  at  Padua 
as  a  pupil  of  Squarcione. 

The  seriousness  of  Cosimo  Tura's  realism  was  unyielding  to 
those  intellectual  qualities  that  dominated  the  art  of  Florence  in 
his  day  ;  but,  in  spite  of  a  certain  harshness  of  effect,  the  vigour 
of  his  design  and  the  dignity  of  his  conception  give  permanent 
value  to  the  work  of  this  master.  Tura  is  represented  in  the 
Louvre  by  two  pictures ;  the  figures  seen  in  his  large  lunette  of 
the  Pieta  (No.  1556)  are  admirably  designed  to  fill  up  the  space 
they  occupy.  This  panel  is  a  dismembered  part  of  an  altarpiece 
which  was  painted  for  the  Roverella  family,  and  was  formerly  in  its 
entirety  in  the  Church  of  S.  Giorgio  fuori  le  Mura  at  Ferrara.  The 
Pieta  eventually  passed  to  the  Campana  collection,  and  so  to  the 
Louvre.  The  drapery  in  this  panel,  which  is  cracked  horizontally, 
is  tinny,  and  the  flesh  is  metallic  with  its  white  and  purple  lights, 
while  the  bones  in  the  faces  being  over-prominent  create  an 
unpleasant  effect.  The  centre  panel  of  the  original  altarpiece 
represents  the  Madonna  and  Child  Enthroned.  It  passed  in 
time     into     the     Frizzoni     collection    at     Bergamo,     and     was 

12  89 


90  THE  LOUYRE 

subsequently  purchased  in  1867  from  Sir  Charles  Eastlake  for 
the  National  Gallery  (No.  772).  The  sinister  wing  of  the 
original  altarpiece  depicts  the  Bishop  Lorenzo  Roverella  presented 
to  the  Virgin  by  St.  Maurelius  and  St.  Paul,  and  is  now  in  the 
private  rooms  of  the  Colonna  Palace  in  Rome. 

The  Church  of  S.  Giorgio  fuori  le  Mura  at  Ferrara  also 
at  one  time  contained  another  altarpiece  painted  by  Cosimo  Tura. 
It  was  placed  over  the  altar  of  St.  Maurelius,  but  has  long  ago 
been  dismembered.  One  of  its  panels  is  the  Flight  into  Egypt,  in 
the  collection  of  Mr.  R.  H.  Benson ;  two  others,  representing  a 
Scene  from  the  Life  of  St.  Maurelius  and  the  Martyrdom  of  St. 
Maurelius,  are  in  the  Ferrara  Gallery ;  another  is  the  Adoration 
of  the  Magi,  in  the  possession  of  the  Contessa  di  Santa  Flora,  in 
Rome ;  while  a  fifth,  the  Circumcision,  belongs  to  the  Marchesa 
Passeri,  in  Rome. 

The  Louvre  possesses  an  arched  panel  of  A  Monk  (No. 
1557)  by  Tura.  The  panel  is  split  and  the  cheek  of  the  saint 
injured. 

The  seriousness  of  purpose  which  inspired  Cosimo  Tura  was 
absorbed  by  his  pupil  Francesco  Cossa  (1435-1477),  whose  art 
is  not  seen  at  the  Louvre.  One  of  Cossa's  pupils  was  Lorenzo 
Costa,  who  in  1483  passed  from  Ferrara  to  Bologna,  to  which 
city  he  carried  the  principles  of  Tura's  training.  Francesco 
Bianchi  (1460-1510)  was  another  of  Tura's  pupils,  but  he  belongs 
more  strictly  to  the  school  of  Modena.  Another  pupil  in  the 
studio  of  the  chef  d'ecole  of  Ferrarese  painting  was  Ercole  Roberti 
(1430  ?-1496),  who  also  worked  at  Padua.  This  painter,  whose 
full  name  was  Ercole  de'  Roberti  Grandi,  has  been  justly  claimed 
as  the  author  of  the  two  small  panels  representing  St.  Apollonia 
(No.  1677a),  holding  in  her  hand  the  pincers,  the  symbol  of  her 
martyrdom,  and  St.  Michael  (No.  1677b).  These  companion  pictures 
are    officially    described    under    the    ambiguous    designation    of 


THE   SCHOOL  OF  FERRARA  91 

"Ferrarese  School,  xvi  century."  They,  however,  clearly  belong 
to  the  earlier  century,  and  are  probably  by  Robert!. 

The  Louvre  contains  nothing  by  Ercole  Roberti's  pupil, 
Ercole  di  Giulio  Cesare  Grandi  (1465  ?-1531).  Ercole  Grandi's 
influence  is  sometimes  seen  in  the  exceedingly  rare  pictures  of 
Giovanni  Battista  Benvenuto,  who  is  better  known  under  the  name 
of  Ortolano  (  "  the  gardener  "),  and  takes  his  name  from  the  occupa- 
tion of  his  father.  The  art  of  Ortolano  (1460-1529)  is  seen  to 
the  greatest  advantage  in  the  /St.  Sebastian,  St.  Roch,  and  St. 
Demetrius,  in  the  National  Gallery  (No.  669).  An  immature  work 
by  him  is  apparently  the  Nativity  in  this  Gallery  (No.  1401),  which 
in  the  opinion  of  the  compilers  of  the  Catalogue  is  by  Domenico 
Panetti  (1450?-1512?),  a  pupil  of  Lorenzo  Costa.  Panetti's  works 
are  rarely  met  with  out  of  Italy. 

Among  the  pictures  of  this  school,  those  of  Lodovico  Mazzolino 
(1478  ?-1528)  are  perhaps  the  easiest  to  recognise.  His  Holy  Family 
(No.  1387)  is  not  now  exhibited,  but  the  Christ  preaxihing  to  the 
Multitude  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee  (No.  1388)  is  evidently  by  him, 
although  it  has  been  ranked  by  one  critic  as  a  Flemish  picture 
painted  under  the  inspiration  of  Mazzolino  and  Dosso  Dossi. 

Panetti  was  the  master  of  Benvenuto  Tisi,  a  very  prolific 
painter  who  is  better  known  by  the  name  of  Garofalo  (1481  ?-1559), 
owing  to  his  occasionally  painting  a  gillyflower  into  his  pictures 
as  a  signature.  Although  the  Catalogue  includes  four  small 
works  by  this  artist,  a  Circumcision  (No.  1550),  a  Holy  Family  (No. 
1552),  a  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1554),  and  a  Sleeping  Child  Jesus 
(No.  1553),  only  the  last  of  them  is  now  exhibited. 

Another  artist  in  this  school  who  signed  his  pictures  with 
a  rehus  was  Giovanni  Lutero  (1479  ?-1542),  who  is  better  known 
under  the  name  of  Dosso  Dossi.  A  typical  instance  of  this 
punning  use  of  his  name  is  the  Money  Changers  driven  owt  of  the 
Temple,  in  the  Doria   Gallery  at  Rome;  it  is  signed  with  a  "D" 


92  THE  LOUVRE 

traversed  by  a  bone  (osso),  obviously  a  play  on  his  name  of  Dosso 
or  D  OSSO.     No  picture  by  Dosso  Dossi  is  now  exhibited. 

Francesco  Bonsignori  (1455-1519),  Marco  Zoppo  (fl.  1471-1498), 
Michele  Coltellini  (1480-1542),  Ippolito  Scarsellino  (1551-1620), 
Girolamo  da  Carpi,  and  other  Ferrarese  painters  are  unrepresented 
in  this  collection. 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  MILAN 

THE  painters  who  practised  in  Milan  in  the  fourteenth 
century  were  little  better  than  provincial  craftsmen 
who  had  come  within  the  range  of  the  Giottesque 
tradition  without  grasping  the  more  vital  of  its  principles. 
Those  who  worked  in  Milanese  territory  in  the  first  half  of 
the  fifteenth  century  acquired  some  of  the  reflected  influences 
which  passed  from  the  work  of  Pisanello  and  Jacopo  Bellini  in 
Verona,  and  from  the  more  striking  achievements  of  the  Paduan 
and  early  Venetian  schools,  but  their  work  lacked  all  trace  of 
originality. 

A  painter  of  the  name  of  Michelino  Molinari  da  Besozzo  (fl.  1394- 
1442),  or  Michele  da  Pavia,  was  painting  at  Milan  about  1420. 
However,  there  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  a  school  of  painting, 
but  only  an  aggregation  of  painters  in  Milanese  territory,  prior  to 
the  arrival  at  Pavia  and  Milan  of  the  Brescian-born  master,  Vicenzo 
Foppa,  about  1458.  Previous  to  that  important  event,  if  not  through- 
out the  whole  range  of  its  activity,  Milanese  art  lacked  the  higher 
elements  of  genius  in  all  matters  aesthetic.  As  a  school  it  was  to  the 
end  too  inclined  to  mere  prettiness  and  superficial  sweetness. 

The  Umbrian-born  architect  and  painter,  Bramante  (1444-1514), 
who  had  received  his  education  in  Florence,  painted  in  Lombardy 
from  1472-1474,  as  his  Panigarola  frescoes  now  in  the  Brera  testify. 
Bramante  also  influenced  Foppa,  whose  work  is  well  defined  and 
whose  colouring  is  subdued. 

Side  by  side  with  Foppa  at  the  head  of  the  Milanese  school 
comes  Bernardino  Butinone  (fl.  1450-1507),  a  great  deal  of  whose 

93 


94  THE  LOUYRE 

work  may  still  be  seen  at  Milan.  A  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1523), 
which  is  doubtfully  ascribed  in  the  Catalogue  to  Gregorio  Schiavone, 
a  pupil  of  Squarcione  at  Padua,  may  possibly  be  by  Butinone,  whose 
art  is  marked  by  an  austerity  and  dryness  which  are  absent  from 
the  paintings  of  Zenale,  who  was  the  partner  and  perhaps  a  pupil 
of  Butinone. 

The  Circumcision,  with  the  Portrait  of  the  Donor  (No.  1545), 
although  catalogued  under  the  name  of  Bramantino,  may  be  by 
Zenale  (1436-1526).  This  panel  is  inscribed  "xl.  anno  U91.  fR 
H.  LAPUGN^vs  pp  HVMiL  CAff."  Bramautino  (14551-1536?), 
whose  name  was  Bartolommeo  Suardi,  came  under  the  influence  of 
Foppa  and  Bramante,  and  from  the  latter  acquired  his  sobriqicet. 

The  pictures  of  Borgognone  (1455  ?-l  522  ?)  are  easily  recog- 
nised by  the  ashen  grey  pallor  of  his  faces,  relieved  occasionally  by 
eyelids  reddened  by  grief.  He  was  a  prolific  painter  of  religious 
pictures  which  show  simple  pathos.  With  the  possible  exception 
of  the  Family  Portraits  in  the  National  Gallery  (Nos.  779-780), 
which  are  indeed  fragments  of  a  standard,  and  may  have  been 
painted  by  Zenale,  Borgognone,  whose  name  was  Ambrogio  da 
Fossano,  is  not  known  to  have  painted  a  secular  subject. 
This  typical  Milanese  painter  was  another  of  the  pupils  of 
Foppa.  Being  an  architect  as  well  as  a  painter,  Borgognone 
delighted  in  giving  an  architectural  setting  to  his  compositions. 
He  also  loved  to  introduce  brightly  coloured  carpets  and  draperies, 
and  minutely  painted  jewellery  into  his  pictures.  These  character- 
istics are  seen  in  his  companion  pictures  of  St.  Peter  Martyr  and  a 
Donoress  (No.  1182),  and  St.  Aitgitstine  and  a  kneeling  Donor  (No. 
1182a).  The  latter  of  this  pair  of  panels  of  his  early  period  was 
purchased  from  Lord  Aldenham  in  1899  for  1000  guineas.  They 
originally  formed  part  of  a  dismembered  altarpiece,  the  centre  panel 
of  which  is  now  lost  or  unidentified.  His  Presentation  of  Christ  in 
the  Temple  (No.   1181),  although  originally  painted  on  panel,  was 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  MILAN  95 

transferred  to  canvas  in  1885.     Borgognone  might  almost  be  termed 
the  Perugino  of  the  Milanese  school. 


ANDREA  SOLARIO 

Andrea  Solario  (1460  ?-1515  ?),  who  was  perhaps  the  pupil  of 
his  brother  Cristoforo  a  sculptor  and  architect,  went  with  him  to 
Venice  in  1490  and  remained  there  at  least  three  years.  During 
this  time  he  came  under  the  influence  of  Alvise  Vivarini  and 
Giovanni  Bellini.  Earlier  in  his  career  he  was  impressed  by  the 
pictures  of  Antonello  da  Messina,  who  was  in  Venice  and  Milan  in 
1475-1476.  Solario  can  hardly  have  become  Antonello's  pupil  at 
that  early  age.  He  must  also  have  come  within  the  sphere  of 
Leonardo  da  Vinci's  influence.  Leonardo,  who  worked  in  Milan 
between  1482  and  1500  and  from  1506  to  1513,  was  asked 
by  the  Cardinal  George  of  Amboise  to  decorate  a  chapel  in 
the  Chateau  at  Gaillon  in  Normandy.  He,  however,  advised 
the  Cardinal  to  employ  Solario.  Solario  in  consequence  went 
to  France  in  August  1507  to  undertake  the  work.  The  Louvre 
is  rich  in  his  pictures.  His  charming  Madonna  of  the  Green 
Cushion  (No.  1530)  is  inscribed : 

Andreas  de  Solario  fa. 

This  small  panel  was  once  the  property  of  Marie  de  Medicis.  The 
Crudfiximi  (No.  1532)  was  formerly  catalogued  under  the  name  of 
Andrea  de  Milan,  which  led  some  to  confuse  Andrea  Solario  with 
the  much  less  efficient  painter,  Andrea  Salaino.  This  picture  is 
inscribed : 

ANDREAS   MBDIOLANENSIS    FA   1503, 

a  form  of  signature  which  is  said  to  have  been  employed  by  Solario 
only  for  such  of  his  pictures  as  were  destined  for  other  towns  than 


96  THE  LOUVRE 

Milan.     The  Head  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  cm  a  Charg&r  (No.  1533) 
is  said  to  be  signed  and  dated 

ANDREAS    DE   SOLARIO,    FAT,    1507. 

The  Portrait  of  Charles  d'Amboise,  /Seigneur  of  Chaumont  and 
Governor  of  Milan  (No.  1531),  like  many  other  of  Solario's  pictures, 
has  in  the  past,  when  the  range  of  his  art  was  not  so  well  under- 
stood, been  attributed  to  other  artists. 


BERNARDINO   LUINI 

In  Bernardino  Luini  (1475  ?-1533  ?)  we  have  a  lyrical  artist. 
He  is  said  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  one  Stefano  Scotto,  but  he  was 
deeply  impressed  by  the  art  of  Borgognone,  and  early  in  the  sixteenth 
century  came  under  the  influence  of  Leonardo.  Indeed,  it  was 
almost  impossible  at  that  period  of  Milanese  art  for  a  painter  in 
that  school  to  resist  the  style  of  Leonardo.  Although  Luini's 
works  are  reminiscent  of  the  greater  master,  he  strove  after 
originality  ;  he  was  an  industrious  painter  rather  than  an  artist 
of  genius.  Luini  is  never  very  emotional,  never  passionate,  never 
dramatic.  His  figures  are  characterised  by  sweetness  and  grace ; 
his  types  are  refined  but  insipid  and  are  apt  to  become 
monotonous.  It  is  as  a  painter  of  frescoes  that  he  succeeds 
best,  and  the  Louvre  is  fortunate  in  possessing  several  of  his 
works  in  that  medium.  The  best  are  a  Nativity  (No.  1359),  and 
an  Adoration  of  the  Magi  (No.  1360).  The  Read  of  Christ 
(No.  1361)  is  inscribed: 

POSCE   NE   DUBITA    QUOD 

QUODCV    PATRI    IN   NOMINE    MEO 

PETIERIS    FIET    TIBI. 

They  were  acquired  in  1867  from  the  collection  of  the  Duke 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  MILAN  97 

Antonio  Litta  Visconti  Arese,  of  Milan.  The  Louvre  also  contains 
fragments  of  large  fresco  paintings  of  the  Forge  of  Vulcan  (No.  1356), 
a  Child  Seated  (No.  1357),  and  a  Child  Kneeling  (No.  1358).  They 
form  part  of  the  series,  which  is  now  preserved  in  Milan,  but 
formerly  decorated  the  Villa  Felucca  near  Monza ;  they  were 
removed  from  there  in  1817.  These  three  fragments  have  been 
transferred  from  plaster  to  canvas  or  panel.  The  four  frescoes 
(Nos.  1362-1365)  are  by  a  pupil.  The  art  of  Luini  as  a  painter 
on  panel  is  seen  to  advantage  in  the  Holy  Family  (No.  1353),  the 
Virgin  and  the  Infant  Christ  (No.  1354),  and  Salome  receiving  the 
Head  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  (No.  1355). 

The  arrival  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  when  little  over  thirty  years 
of  age,  at  the  court  of  Lodovico  Sforza  at  Milan  revolutionised  art 
in  that  city.  The  exquisite  rhythm  and  balance  and  the  remarkable 
gestures  and  facial  expression  seen  in  his  La^t  Supper  must  have 
made  a  profound  impression  on  all  the  Milanese,  people  and  painters 
alike.  Not  having  been  educated  in  the  profound  principles  that 
gradually  built  up  the  school  of  Florence,  whence  the  great  painter 
came,  the  majority  of  the  native  artists  were  so  overcome  by  his 
power  that  in  time  they  became  enslaved  by  the  magic  of  his 
brush. 

Ambrogio  da  Predis  (1455  ?-1506  ?),  who  worked  as  Leonardo's 
assistant  on  the  National  Gallery's  replica  of  the  Virgin  of  the  Rocks 
in  this  collection  (No.  1599),  is  not  represented  here.  Another 
assistant  and  pupil  of  Leonardo  was  Bernardino  de'  Conti.  As 
we  have  seen,  he  may  be  the  painter  of  the  Profile  Portrait  of  a 
Lady — or  La  Belle  Ferronniere  (No.  1605) — which  is  ofl&cially 
regarded  as  being  of  the  "School  of  Leonardo."  A  similar  attri- 
bution is  also  given  to  the  Madonna  of  the  Scales  (No.  1604), 
which  should  rather  be  assigned  to  Cesare  da  Sesto  (1477-1523), 
a  sickly  and  insipid  imitator  of  the  master.     Another  of  Leonardo's 

imitators    was     Marco    d'Oggiono    (1470  ?- 1540).       His    copy    of 
13 


98  THE  LOUVRE 

Leonardo's  Last  Supper  (No.  1603)  is  perhaps  of  greater  interest 
than  his  own  Holy  Family  (No.  1382)  and  Madonna  and  Child 
(No.  1382a). 

One  of  the  more  original  of  the  imitators  of  Leonardo  was 
Boltraflfio  (1467-1516),  whose  Madonna  of  the  Casio  Family  (No.  1169) 
was  formerly  in  the  Milan  Gallery,  where  any  picture  containing 
a  portrait  of  that  poet  might  reasonably  have  been  expected  to 
remain.     This  picture  is  the  painter's  masterpiece. 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  LOMBARDY 

AFTER  the   activity   which  had    prevailed   in    Milan    during 
the    last    half   of   the   fifteenth    century   and    the    first 
quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century,  art  in  Lombardy  rapidly 
deteriorated.     Before  the  decline  had   passed  into  decadence   Pier 
Francesco  Sacchi  (fl.  1512-1527)  painted  at  Pavia  his  Four  Doctors 
of  the  Church  (No.  1488),  which  is  signed  in  the  cartouche 

PETRI   FRANCISCI 

SACHI   DE    PAPIA 

OPUS    1516. 

Each  of  the  Doctors  duplicates  the  part  of  an  Evangelist.  On 
the  left  St.  Augustine,  with  his  book  inscribed  "  De  Civitate  Dei," 
is  also  shown  as  St.  John  with  his  eagle ;  St.  Gregory,  with  his 
dove,  is  also  St.  Luke  with  his  bull ;  St.  Jerome,  with  his  cardinal's 
hat,  is  also  St.  Matthew  with  his  angel ;  while  St.  Ambrose,  with 
his  scourge,  is  also  St.  Mark  with  his  lion.  The  scourge  held 
by  St.  Ambrose,  a  patron  saint  of  Milan,  alludes  to  his  refusing 
the  Emperor  Theodosius  admittance  into  the  church  at  Milan 
in  consequence  of  the  general  massacre  he  ordered  with  a  view 
to  subduing  a  sedition  at  Thessalonica  in  a.b.  390. 

Another  early-sixteenth-century  Pavian  painter  was  Barto- 
lommeo  Bononi,  whose  only  known  picture  is  the  Madonna  and 
Child,  St.  Francis,  a  Bishop,  and  a  Monk  (No.  1174).     It  is  signed 

OPUS   BARTOLOMEI    BONONII    CIVIS    PAPIENSIS    1501. 

on  the  stump  of  the  tree  in  the  centre  foreground. 

99 


100  THE  LOUVRE 

A  striking,  although  mediocre,  Family  of  the  Virgin  (No.  1284) 
by  Lorenzo  de'  Fasoli,  who  is  also  known  as  Lorenzo  di  Pavia, 
and  who  died  about  1520,  illustrates  the  tradition  that  St. 
Anne,  the  mother  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  was  three  times  married, 
Joachim  being  her  third  husband ;  the  other  two  were  Cleophas 
and  Salome.     This  composition  of  seventeen  figures  is  signed 

LAURENTIVS    PAPIEN    FECIT   MDXIII, 

and  is  one  of  the  latest  examples  of  this  tradition,  which  about 
1520  passed  out  of  art. 

A  large  Triptych  (No.  1384),  signed 

JOHNES    MAZONVS 
DE   ALEXA    PINXIT, 

is  by  Giovanni  Massone,  who  worked  at  Alessandria  in  the  second 
half  of  the  fifteenth  century ;  it  contains  the  portraits  of  Pope 
Sixtus  IV.  with  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  and  Cardinal  Giuliano  della 
Rovere  under  the  protection  of  St.  Anthony  of  Padua.  Cardinal 
Giuliano  della  Rovere  was  Bishop  of  Savona  about  1483 ;  he  was 
in  1503  elected  Pope  under  the  title  of  Julius  ii.,  and  became  the 
patron  of  Raphael, 

The  remaining  pictures  of  this  school  are  of  little  account. 
Bernardino  Campi  (1522-1592  ?)  is  represented  by  a  Mater  Dolwosa 
(No.  1202);  and  Bartolommeo  Manfredi  (1580?-1617)  by  a  Fwtune 
Teller  (No.  1368),  a  subject  which  demonstrates  the  Decadence 
in  full  operation.  Giovanni  Paolo  Panini  (1695-1764),  who  came 
to  Paris  in  1732  and  became  an  Academician,  seems  to  have 
got  some  satisfaction  out  of  committing  to  canvas  a  Concert  given 
at  Rome  on  Dec.  36,  1729,  in  Honour  of  the  Birth  of  the  Dauphin,  the 
son  of  Louis  X  V.  (No.  1409)  and  a  large  Interior  of  St.  Peter's  at  Rome 
(No.  1408),  the  latter  being  signed  and  dated  1730. 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  FERRARA-BOLOGNA 

THE  city  of  Bologna  was  visited  in  1268  by  Oderigi  of  Gubbio 
(fl.  1268-1295),  who  had  the  benefit  of  personal  inter- 
course with  Giotto  in  Rome.  Bologna  produced  a  skilled 
miniature  painter  in  Franco  Bolognese  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
but  gave  birth  to  few  native  painters  of  merit.  Until  Francesco 
Cossa  removed  from  Ferrara  to  Bologna  in  1470,  art  in  the  City  of 
the  Colonnades  was  in  an  undeveloped  state.  The  school  of  Bologna, 
which  may  be  considered  as  an  offshoot  of  the  Ferrarese  school, 
was  further  strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  Lorenzo  Costa. 

Lorenzo  Costa  (1460-1535),  who  had  been  a  pupil  of  Francesco 
Cossa  at  Ferrara,  worked  for  the  Bentivogli  family  in  Bologna 
until  1509.  In  that  year  he  was  induced  to  fix  his  abode  in 
Mantua  at  the  instance  of  the  Marquis  Francesco  Gonzaga  and 
his  wife  Isabella  d'Este,  whose  court  painter,  Andrea  Mantegna, 
had  died  three  years  earlier.  Costa  there  painted  about  1510  his 
Court  of  Isabella  d'Este  in  the  Garden  of  the  Muses  (No.  1261),  which 
is  signed 

L.    COSTA   F. 

This  famous  canvas  shows  a  weakness  of  drawing  and  a  "  want 
of  force  that  mars  what  is  meant  for  grace."  Costa's  Mythological 
Scene  (No.  1262)  is  not  now  exhibited,  but  in  it,  as  in  the  majority 
of  his  works,  the  figures  have  no  real  existence.  The  heads  are 
usually  "screwed  on — not  always  at  the  proper  angle — to  cross- 
poles  hung  about  with  clothes."  His  landscapes,  however,  "with- 
out being  in  any  sense  serio,us  studies,  are  among  the  loveliest 
painted  in  his  day." 

lOI 


102  THE  LOUVRE 

Costa's  shortcomings  were  to  dominate  to  the  end  the  school 
of  Bologna,  which  was  essentially,  almost  from  its  incipience,  one 
of  Decadence.  He  became  the  first  direct  master  of  Francesco 
Francia  (1450-1517),  the  typical  Renaissance  painter  in  Bologna 
who  seems  to  have  taken  to  painting  at  the  relatively  advanced 
age  of  thirty-five,  Francia  had  matriculated  in  the  Goldsmiths' 
Guild  in  1482  and  was  Master  of  the  Guild  in  1483,  the  year  of 
Costa's  arrival ;  but  until  he  came  under  the  influence  of  Costa 
he  had  worked  only  as  an  engraver  of  pad  in  niello-work,  a 
die-sinker,  and  a  medallist.  They  soon  went  into  partnership, 
the  upper  storey  of  their  joint  workshop  being  used  for  the  painting 
of  pictures,  while  metal-work  was  executed  below.  Francia  is  not 
seen  to  the  best  advantage  in  the  Louvre.  His  Christ  on  the  Cross 
(No.  1436)  is  somewhat  unusual  in  treatment,  as  a  nude  figure  of 
St.  Job,  a  plague  saint,  is  painted  in  the  foreground.  This  large 
picture  bears  the  characteristic  signature 

FRANCIA   AURIFABEB, 

and  shows  his  practice  of  demonstrating  the  versatility  of  his  many 
talents.  The  small  Nativity  (No.  1435)  is  an  authentic  work.  The 
Madonna  and  Child,  with  /St.  George,  St.  Sebastian,  St.  Francis,  and  St. 
John  the  Baptist  (No.  1436a),  is  known  as  the  Guastavillani  Madonna 
from  the  inscription  to  the  effect  that  Filippo  Guastavillani,  a 
Bolognese  senator,  ordered  the  picture  of  Francia.  Nevertheless, 
this  large  panel  appears  to  have  been  executed  by  his  son,  Giacomo. 
A  Madonna  and  Child  (No.  1437)  and  a  Holy  Family  with  St.  Francis 
d'Assisi  (No.  1437a)  are  only  by  pupils. 

The  Louvre  contains  no  example  of  the  work  of  the  Umbrian 
artist,  Timoteo  Viti  (1467-1524),  who  was  a  pupil  of  Costa,  and 
from  July  1490  to  April  1495  worked  in  the  studio  of  Francia. 
There  are  no  other  sixteenth-century  Bolognese  paintings  in  this 
collection. 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  CREMONA 

THIS  small  and  unimportant  school  includes  Boccaccio 
Boccaccino  (fl.  1460-1518?),  who  was  formed  on  various 
Venetian  and  Milanese  influences.  The  Holy  Family 
(No.  1168)  which  is  credited  to  him,  but  not  now  exhibited, 
seems  to  be  an  unattributable  panel  by  some  artist  of  the 
Lombard  school.  This  school  includes  an  early-sixteenth-century 
imitator  who  has  received  the  significant  name  of  "Pseudo- 
Boccaccino,"  but  is  not  here  represented. 

The  Mater  Dolorosa  (No.  1202)  appears  to  be  by  Bernardino 
Campi,  a  mediocre  sixteenth-century  painter  of  the  Lombard 
and  Cremonese  schools.  Sofonisba  Anguissola  (1528-1625),  a 
female  artist,  was  his  pupil  and  the  wife  of  Orazio  Lomellini. 


103 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  BRESCIA 

THIS  small  town  seems  to  have  produced  little  local  talent 
previous  to  the  birth  of  Foppa.  Ottaviano  Prandino, 
who  had  worked  with  Altichiero  at  Padua,  and  Barto- 
lommeo  Testorino  (died  about  1429)  are  little  more  than  names. 

Vincenzo  Foppa  (1427?-1516?)  was  born  near  Brescia.  The 
theory  that  he  studied  under  Squarcione  at  Padua  lacks  con- 
firmation. On  the  other  hand,  he  seems  to  have  been  little  affected 
by  the  Squarcionesque  traditions,  and  is  rather  to  be  regarded 
as  the  artistic  product  of  the  school  of  Verona,  where  he  would 
have  come  under  the  influence  of  Pisanello  and  Jacopo  Bellini. 
He  may  have  been  a  friend  of  Andrea  Mantegna.  It  is,  however, 
not  in  Brescia,  but  in  Milan  that  Foppa's  art  may  be  studied 
to-day.  He  arrived  in  Pavia  about  1458,  and  became  the  founder 
of  the  school  of  Milan  twenty  years  before  Leonardo  first  took 
up  his  abode  at  the  court  of  Lodovico  II  Moro. 

Foppa's  pupil  Vincenzo  Civerchio  (1470?-1544)  and  Floriano 
Ferramola  (1480-1528)  were  the  joint  founders  of  the  school  of 
Brescia ;  Romanino  (1485-1566)  was  a  pupil  of  the  latter.  The 
Louvre  is  singularly  poor  in  its  representation  of  this  school, 
which  cannot  here  be  studied  earlier  than  the  (so-called)  Portrait 
of  Gaston  de  Foix  (No.  1518)  by  Giovanni  Girolamo  Savoldo 
(1480  ?-1548  ?).     This  canvas,  which  appears  to  be  signed 

Opera  di  Jovanni  Jeronimo  di  Bressia  di  Savoldi, 

shows  unmistakably  the   conflicting   influences,   mostly   Venetian, 
under  which  this  artist  worked. 

14 


106  THE  LOUVRE 

Moretto  {1498  ?-1555  ?),  who  was  a  pupil  of  Ferramola  and 
was  influenced  by  Savoldo  and  Romanino,  produced  large  and 
striking  altarpieces  as  well  as  portraits.  He  met  with  some 
success  in  his  attempts  to  combine  a  subtlety  of  feeling  peculiar 
to  himself  with  the  "  silvery  "  tones  of  which  he  was  so  fond.  His 
St.  Bernardino  of  Siena  and  St.  Louis  of  Toulouse  (No.  1175)  and 
his  St.  Bonaverdura  and  St.  Anthony  of  Padua  (No.  1176)  are 
arched  panels  on  a  much  smaller  scale  than  he  often  uses. 

Moretto's  pupil,  Giambattista  Moroni  (1525  ?-l  578),  painted 
many  far  better  portraits  than  that  oi  An  Old  Man  seated  (No. 
1395).  The  only  other  Brescian  painting  in  this  collection  seems 
to  be  the  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  1646),  who  is  seen  at  half 
length,  seated  three  -  quarters  to  the  left  and  wearing  a  robe 
trimmed  with  fur.  Although  catalogued  as  an  unattributable 
Italian  work,  it  is  in  our  opinion  by  Calisto  Piazza  of  Lodi 
(fl.  1520-1560),  the  son  of  Martino  Piazza  of  the  Milanese  school. 
To  Calisto  da  Lodi  has  been  assigned  the  Portrait  of  a  Knight 
of  Malta  (No.  1594)  which  is  catalogued  as  being  by  Titian. 

The  Louvre  is  very  inferior  to  the  National  Gallery  in  both 
the  quality  and  quantity  of  pictures  of  this  school 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  MODENA 

THE  city  of  Modena  gave  birth  to  the  early  painters  Tommaso  da 
Modena  (1325-1379)  and  Barnaba  da  Modena  (fl.  1377),  who 
worked  in  many  diflferent  parts  of  Tuscany.  The  prominent 
figure  in  this  school,  however,  is  Francesco  Bianchi  (1460-1510). 
This  painter,  whose  name  is  sometimes  given  as  Francesco  Bianchi 
Ferrari,  was  in  all  probability  a  pupil  of  Cosimo  Tura  at  Ferrara. 
He  left  that  city  about  1480  for  Modena.  His  style  of  painting 
has  been  the  subject  of  much  discussion,  chiefly  because  he  is 
regarded  as  the  master  of  Correggio  of  Parma.  The  Madonna  and 
Child,  with  St.  Benedict  and  St.  Quentin  (No.  1167),  although 
officially  catalogued  under  his  name,  is  not  now  generally  accepted 
as  his  work.  In  1725  it  was  in  the  Church  of  St.  Quentin  at 
Parma  and  attributed  to  Francia.  Certain  critics  have  ascribed 
it  to  Alessandro  da  Carpi  and  others  to  Pellegrino  Munari  of 
Modena  (1450  ?-l  523).  Bianchi's  work  can  only  be  studied  in  the 
Pinacoteca  Estense  and  in  the  churches  at  Modena. 

The  three  pictures  officially  catalogued  under  the  name  of  the 
third-rate  artist  Bartolommeo  Schidone  (1570?-1615)  are  not 
exhibited,  nor  are  they  missed, — a  remark  which  will  also  apply 
to  a  St.  Cecilia  (No.  1253)  by  Jacopo  Cavedone  (1577-1660). 


107 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  VICENZA 

THE  first  Vicentine  painter  known  to  us  is  Battista  da  Vicenza 
(fl.   1450),  but  it  was   not   until  the  last   quarter  of  the 
fifteenth  century  that  Vicenza  produced  a  painter  of  any 
note.      Bartolommeo    Montagna    (1460?-1523)    studied  the   art   of 
the  Vivarini,  and  so  became  the  central  figure  in  an  unimportant 
school.     His  Ecce  Homo  (No  1393),  which  bears  the  signature ; 

Bartholomeus  Montagna 
Fecit 

in  a  cartellino  fastened  to  a  twig,  is  a  mature  work.     The  delightful 

and  late  picture  of  Three  Angel  Musicians  (No.  1394),  which  is  signed 

in  a  cartellino 

Opus  Bartholomei 

Montagna, 

shows  the  unmistakable  influence  of  Gentile  Bellini.  The  same 
motif  is  found  in  the  three  musician  angels  in  Montagna's  magnifi- 
cent Madonna  and  Child,  with  St.  Andrew,  JSt.  Monica,  /St.  Ursula, 
and  iSt.  Sigismund,  of  1498,  in  the  Brera. 

Montagna's  son,  Benedetto  (fl.  1500-1540),  Giovanni  Buon- 
consiglio  (1470  ?-1536  ?),  and  Giovanni  Speranza  (1480-1536)  also 
practised  as  painters ;  but  Vicentine  art  from  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century  has  little  claim  on  our  attention. 


109 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  VERCELLI 

ONE  of  the  earliest  painters  in  this  school  was  an  obscure  artist 
of  the  Old  Lombard  school  named  Martino  Spanzotti. 
He  was  the  master  of  Gaudenzio  Ferrari  (1471-1546), 
whose  frescoes  are  easily  recognisable  by  the  crude  colour, 
exuberant  imagination,  and  forceful,  almost  brutal,  realism  which 
have  caused  him  to  be  termed,  somewhat  loosely,  the  Rubens 
of  Italy.  A  very  late  work  by  him  is  the  ^St.  Paul  (No.  1285), 
which  is  signed  and  dated 

1543 
GAUDENTIUS. 

Another  of  Spanzotti's  pupils  was  Sodoma,  who  was  born  at 
Vercelli  in  Piedmont,  in  1477.  He  is  best  known  for  the  large 
amount  of  work  that  he  executed  at  Siena.  This  prolific  artist, 
like  a  number  of  other  painters  of  this  unimportant  school,  is 
not  represented  in  the  Louvre.     He  died  in  1551. 

A  faint  echo  of  the  teaching  of  Spanzotti  may  at  times  be 
detected  in  the  works  of  Defendente  Ferrari  (fl.  1500-1535)  and 
Girolamo  Giovenone  (fl.  1513-1527),  who  are  not  represented  in  the 
Louvre. 


XIZ 


PLATE   XV.— COREEGGIO 
(1494-1534) 

SCHOOL  OF  PAEMA 

No.  1117.— THE   MYSTIC   MARRIAGE  OF  ST.  CATHERINE 
(Mariage  mystique  de  Sainte  Catherine) 

The  Virgin,  in  a  red  tunic  and  blue  mantle,  is  seated  to  the  left  of  the  composition  holding  on  her  lap 
the  Infant  Christ.  He  is  about  to  place  the  wedding-ring  on  the  third  finger  of  the  outstretched  right  hand 
of  the  kneeling  St.  Catherine,  who  wears  a  gold-brocaded  robe.  Behind  her  stands  St.  Sebastian,  looking 
on  with  interest  and  clasping  in  his  hand  the  arrows,  the  symbol  of  his  martyrdom.  In  the  landscape 
background  are  depicted  scenes  of  the  martyrdom  of  the  two  Saints. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

3  ft.  5J  in.  X  3  ft  4  in.     (1-05  x  1-02.) 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  PARMA 

ONE  of  the  most  distinctive  and  perhaps  the  most  sensuous  of 
the  Italian  masters  is  Correggio  (1494-1534),  who  takes  his 
name  from  his  birthplace,  II  Correggio,  a  small  town  near 
Modena.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  he  should  have  become 
the  pupil  of  Francesco  Bianchi  of  the  school  of  Modena.  Correggio 
came  under  almost  all  the  leading  influences  which  distinguish 
the  principal  Italian  schools  of  the  early  sixteenth  century. 
His  "sidelong  grace,"  his  subtle  gradations  of  tone,  his  daring 
foreshortening,  his  sublimity  of  space  and  light,  his  vivid  imagina- 
tion, his  profound  knowledge  of  chiaroscuro,  render  him  an 
isolated  phenomenon  in  Italian  art  at  the  moment  when  it  was 
passing  into  precipitate  decline.  His  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine 
(No.  1117,  Plate  XV.)  entirely  lacks  the  dignity  and  solemnity 
which  are  the  dominant  features  of  truly  religious  art.  The 
figures  which  make  up  this  fascinating  composition  are  delicate, 
but  by  no  means  of  an  elevated  type.  This  pseudo-religious 
picture,  when  studied  together  with  the  Jupiter  and  Antiope 
(No.  1118),  shows  the  justice  of  the  criticism  that  Correggio's 
pictures  are  "hymns  to  the  charm  of  femininity  the  like  of 
which  have  never  been  known  before  or  since  in  Christian 
Europe."  It  is  more  remarkable  that  this  mythological  canvas, 
which  is  so  full  of  sensuous  vitality,  should  have  been  added 
to  the  royal  collection  of  England  in  the  seventeenth  century 
than  that  it  should  have  been  allowed  by  Cromwell  to  leave  the 
country   a  few  years  later.      Two   Allegories   of  ViHue  and   Vice, 

^5 


114  THE  LOUVRE 

executed  by  Correggio  in  gouache,  hang  in  one  of  the  Rooms  of 
Drawings. 

Parmigianino  (1504-1540),  an  imitator  of  Correggio  and  in  a  less 
degree  of  Raphael,  who  were  both  short-lived  artists,  painted  the  two 
small  panels  of  a  Holy  Family  (No.  1385),  and  a  Holy  Family  and 
Baints  (No.  1386). 


THE  SCHOOL  OF  BOLOGNA 

AFTER  the  deaths  of  Francia  in  1517  and  Lorenzo  Costa  in 
1536,  painting  in  Bologna  rapidly  decreased  in  quality, 
although  not  in  volume.     A  distinctive  feature  was  the 
work  of  Marc  Antonio  Raimondi  (b.  1475),  a  pupil  of  Francia,  who 
developed  the  process  of  engraving  on  copper. 

Bologna,  which  like  other  cities  of  Italy  felt  the  effects  of 
humanism,  acquired  an  increased  importance  in  political  activity 
through  the  meeting  there  of  Pope  Leo  x.  and  Francis  i.,  in  1515, 
and  by  the  Coronation  of  Charles  v.,  on  Feb.  24,  1530.  It  also 
obtained  within  a  few  years  a  great  reputation  as  an  art  centre, 
although  it  is  not  easy  for  us  now  to  realise  why.  The  esteem 
in  which  its  art  was  held  in  foreign  countries  is  also  difficult  to 
explain.  Innocenzo  da  Imola,  who  had  studied  under  Francia, 
was  the  master  of  Primaticcio,  who  was  summoned  to  France  by 
Fran9ois  i.  in  1531.  Primaticcio  at  that  time  was  working  at 
Mantua  with  Giulio  Romano,  the  favourite  pupil  and  the  imitator 
of  Raphael.  While  Primaticcio  took  with  him  the  influence  of 
Bolognese  art  to  Fontainebleau,  where  he  died  in  1570,  Pellegrino 
Tibaldi  (1527-1591),  a  pupil  of  Bagnacavallo,  carried  the  Bolognese 
influence  into  Spain. 

The  appreciation  by  a  foreign  artist  of  the  art  of  Bologna  is 
shown  in  the  case  of  Denis  Calvaert  of  Antwerp,  who  thought 
the  Bolognese  school  to  be  in  so  flourishing  a  state,  when  he  passed 
through  on  his  way  to  study  in  Rome,  that  he  decided  to  abandon 
his  original  intention  and  to  stay  on  in  the  city  of  the  Colonnades. 

A  striking  feature  of  the  literature   and  art  of  painting  at 

"5 


116  THE  LOUVRE 

Bologna  was  that  its  University  had  always  accorded  equal  terms 
to  women  students  with  men,  and  had  women  professors.  Female 
painters — they  were  without  exception  only  of  the  third  rank — had 
worked  in  Bologna  from  the  days  of  Caterina  di  Vigri,  painter  and 
saint,  who  was  born  as  early  as  1413.  In  the  last  quarter  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  art  in  Bologna  passed  into  the  complete  control 
of  the  Eclectics. 


THE  DECADENT  SCHOOLS 

IN  the  Florentine  and  Roman  schools  the  Decadence  may  be  said 
to  have  begun  with  the  death  of  Raphael  in  1520.  With 
the  exception  of  the  Venetian  school,  in  which  art  did  not 
languish  until  after  the  death  of  Tintoretto  in  1594,  painting 
rapidly  degenerated  during  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
Paintings  were,  of  course,  produced  in  great  profusion  in  every  art 
centre  of  Italy,  but  form  and  subject  were  not  in  true  harmony. 
To  a  great  extent  local  traditions  were  abandoned,  the  earlier 
types  varied,  and  three  distinctive  movements  developed — the 
"Mannerists,"  the  "Eclectics,"  and  the  "Naturalists." 

THE   "MANNERISTS" 

Giulio  Romano  (1492?-1546)  was  content  to  imitate  the  works 
of  Raphael ;  and  Daniele  da  Volterra  (1509-1566)  tried,  as  we 
have  seen  in  his  David  overcoming  Goliath  (No.  1462),  to  repro- 
duce the  swelling  muscles  of  Michelangelo,  Baroccio  (1526-1612) 
in  his  Circumcision  (No.  1149),  which  is  signed  and  dated  1570, 
and  in  his  Virgin  in  Glory,  with  St.  AnJthony  and  St.  Lttcy  (No.  1150), 
sought  to  reproduce  the  ineffable  grace  of  Correggio ;  while  others 
endeavoured  to  repeat  the  enigmatic  smile,  the  "greyhound"  eye, 
and  the  mysterious  chiaroscuro  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci, 

Although  the  "Mannerists"  were  to  be  met  with  in  most 
of  the  centres  of  painting  in  the  sixteenth  century,  they  made 
Rome  the  centre  of  their  operations.  Domenico  Feti  (1589-1624) 
is  represented  in  the  Louvre   by  four  canvases,   JVero  (No.    1286), 

"7 


118  THE  LOUVRE 

lAfe  in  ike  Cmintry  (No.  1287),  Melancholy  (No.  1288),  and  The 
Guardian  Angel  (No.  1289),  the  subjects  being  highly  significant. 

In  the  Holy  Family  (No.  1493)  by  Sassoferrato  (1605-1685)  are 
shown  the  shallowness  and  empty  formalism  which  produced  the 
fair-haired,  blue-eyed,  hyper-sentimental  Madonnas  with  which  his 
name  is  associated.     Carlo  Dolci  is  not  represented  in  the  Louvre. 

One  of  the  more  estimable  artists  in  the  Late  Roman  school 
is  Carlo  Maratta  (1625-1713),  who  may  be  judged  by  the  unsigned 
Portrait  of  Marie  Madeleine  Rospigliosi  (No.  1379)  and  His  Own 
Pmirait  (No.  1380). 

Two  paintings  of  Fruit  (Nos.  1254,  1255)  stand  to  the  credit 
of  M.  A.  Cerquozzi  (1602-1660),  and  the  art  of  G.  B.  Castiglione,  of 
Genoa  (1616-1670),  is  seen  in  his  Abraham  and  Melchizedek  (No. 
1250)  and  Animals  and  Utensils  (No.  1252). 

THE   "ECLECTICS" 

A  revolt  against  the  methods  of  the  "  Mannerists "  was  made 
by  the  Carracci  when  they  opened  their  school  of  art  at  Bologna 
in  1589.  These  "  Eclectics "  ("  Pickers  and  Choosers ")  advocated 
a  careful  study  of  "the  drawing  of  Rome,  the  Venetian  shadow, 
the  terrific  force  of  Michelangelo's  manner,  the  natural  truth  of 
Titian,  the  pure  and  sovereign  style  of  Correggio,  the  true  symmetry 
of  Raphael,  the  dignity  and  principle  of  Tibaldi,  the  invention  of 
the  learned  Primaticcio,  together  with  a  little  of  the  grace  of 
Parmigianino " !  It  is  not  surprising  that  they  in  their  turn  soon 
sank  into  mere  academic  mediocrity. 

The  Louvre  is  notoriously  rich  in  representative  examples  of 
the  "  Eclectic "  painters'  art.  The  name  of  Lodovico  Carracci 
(1555-1619),  the  founder  of  this  school  at  Bologna,  is  included  in 
the  official  Catalogue,  but  neither  of  his  two  pictures  is  at  present 
exhibited.     Lodovico  had  as   cousins,   Agostino  (1557  ?-l  602)   and 


THE  DECADENT  SCHOOLS  119 

Annibale  (1560  ?-l 609),  who  also  worked  in  Rome.  Six  of  Annibale 
Carracci's  fifteen  pictures  in  this  collection  are  now  exhibited. 
The  Madonna  of  the  Cherries  (No.  1217)  and  the  Sleeping  Child  Jesus 
(No.  1218)  are  characteristic,  while  his  huge  canvas  of  The  Virgin 
appearing  to  St.  Luke  and  St.  Catherine  (No.  1219)  in  every  way 
exemplifies  the  art  of  this  painter  and  his  school.     It  is  inscribed : 

ANNIBAL   CARACTIUS    F.    MDXCIL 

Pictures  of  this  type  were  much  sought  after  and  prized  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  when  this  one  was  seized  by  Napoleon  in  Italy, 
but  to-day  a  higher  standard  of  aesthetics  has  deservedly  ruled 
them  out  of  fashion.  On  the  other  hand,  sufl&cient  attention  is  not 
now  paid  to  some  of  the  landscape  pictures  which  the  "  Eclectics " 
painted ;  Annibale's  Fishing  (No.  1233)  and  Hunting  (No.  1232)  are 
worth  the  attention  of  the  student.  Antonio  Carracci  (1583-1618),  a 
less-known  member  of  this  family,  is  the  author  of  a  large  canvas 
depicting  The  Deluge  (No.  1235). 

Guido  Reni,  after  working  under  Denis  Calvaert  at  Bologna, 
entered  the  school  of  the  Carracci.  This  fitful  sentimentalist 
indulged  in  idealised  abstractions  that  were  neither  human  nor 
divine,  as  may  be  seen  from  his  David  and  Goliath  (No.  1439) 
and  St.  Sebastian  (No.  1450)  on  the  one  hand,  and  his  Ecce  Homo 
(No.  1447)  and  Mary  Magdalene  (No.  1448)  on  the  other.  Four 
of  his  large  mythological  paintings  (Nos.  1453,  1454,  1455,  1457) 
show  some  technical  ability. 

Francesco  Albani  (1578-1660)  was  influenced  by  the  Carracci 
and  Guido  Reni.  The  Diana  and  Actaeon  (No.  1111)  may  be 
selected  out  of  his  nine  productions  mentioned  in  the  Catalogue. 
Domenichino  (1581-1641),  a  pupil  of  the  Carracci,  the  assistant  of 
Annibale  and  a  friend  of  Guido  Reni  in  Rome,  was  a  senti- 
mentalist of  the  most  pronounced  order.  His  hard  execution  and 
unpleasant  colouring  can  be  judged  in  his  St.  Cecilia  (No.  1613), 


120  THE  LOUVRE 

— her  features  are  singularly  ill-proportioned, — but  nine  of  his  other 
pictures  do  not  take  up  any  of  the  valuable  wall  space. 

The  self-taught  artist  and  insipid  Guercino  ("  The  Squintling ") 
(1591-1666),  after  working  in  Rome,  settled  in  1642  at  Bologna, 
where  he  died  in  affluent  circumstances.  His  Raising  of  Lazarus 
(No.  1139),  the  large  Patron  Saints  of  Modena  (No.  1143),  together 
with  a  Circe  (No.  1147)  and  The  Painter's  Own  Portrait  (No.  1148), 
are  now  exhibited.  These  and  such  pictures  as  were  painted  by 
G.  A.  Donducci  (1575-1655),  G.  F.  Grimaldi  (1606-1680),  S.  Cantarini 
(1612-1648),  and  G.  M.  Crespi  (1665-1747),  provoked  a  fresh  reaction. 


THE   "NATURALISTS" 

A  natural  reaction  against  the  selective  methods  of  the 
"  Eclectics  "  gave  rise  to  the  "  Naturalists,"  who,  headed  by  Michel- 
angelo Caravaggio  (1569-1609),  made  Naples  the  centre  of  their 
operations.  The  utterly  repulsive  picture  entitled  The  Death  of 
the  Virgin  (No.  1121),  by  Caravaggio,  is  merely  large.  Neither 
The  Fortune  Teller  (No.  1122)  nor  the  Concert  of  Nine  Musicians 
(No.  1123)  can  be  compared  with  the  really  striking  and  well- 
painted  Portrait  of  Alof  de  Wignacourt,  Grand-Master  of  Malta 
(No.  1124). 

Salvator  Rosa  (1615-1675)  is  represented  by  Tobias  and  the 
Angel  (No.  1477)  and  a  Vision  of  Saul  to  Samuel  (No.  1478).  His 
Landscape  (No.  1480)  shows  that  he  delighted  in  "  ideas  of  desola- 
tion, solitude  and  danger,  impenetrable  forests,  rocky  and  storm- 
lashed  shores,  in  lonely  dells  leading  to  dens  and  caverns  of 
banditti,  alpine  ridges,  trees  blasted  by  lightning  or  sapped  by 
time."     His  Battle  (No.  1479)  is  a  strange  production. 

Caravaggio  was  the  master  of  Ribera  (1588-1656),  who  is 
also  called  Spagnoletto,  and  is  included  in  the  Catalogue  among 
the    Spanish  artists.      This    *'  Naturalist "    school  of  Naples   also 


THE  DECADENT  SCHOOLS 


121 


included  Luca  Giordano  (1632-1705),  who  lived  in  Spain  at  one 
period. 

The  aim  of  the  "Naturalists"  is  displayed  in  the  prominence 
they  gave  to  all  that  was  vulgar,  coarse,  and  vile.  With  them 
art  in  Italy  came  to  an  ignominious  end,  although  in  technical 
accomphshment,  in  mere  craftsmanship,  they  can  hold  their  own 
with  painters  of  much  higher  rank. 


i6 


I 


PLATE   XVI.— JAN   VAN   EYCK 
(1390?-1441) 

EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

No.  1986.— THE  VIRGIN  AND  CHILD  AND   THE  CHANCELLOB  ROLIN 

(La  Vierge  au  donateur) 

An  angel  in  a  blue  alb  and  with  peacock -blue  wings  is  placing  an  elaborate  gold  crown  on  the  head  of 
the  Madonna,  who  holds  the  Infant  Christ  on  her  knee,  and  is  seated  towards  the  right  of  the  composition. 
On  the  other  side  the  Chancellor,  kneeling  at  a  prie-Dieu,  and  with  his  hands  joined  in  adoration,  wears  a 
richly  brocaded  robe,  and  is  seen  in  profile  towards  the  right  The  figures  are  grouped  in  a  portico  opening 
on  to  a  flower-garden  and  a  crenellated  wall ;  in  the  distance  is  seen  a  seven-arched  bridge,  and  beyond  it  a 
castled  island. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

2  ft.  2  in.  X  2 ft.  OJ  in.    (066  x  0-62.) 


THE  EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

THE  early  art  of  Flanders,  unlike  that  of  Italy,  does  not 
present  itself  at  the  Louvre,  or  indeed  at  any  Gallery, 
in  orderly  sequence  from  the  immature  groping  for  artistic 
expression  to  masterly  achievement.  With  the  exception  of  the 
exquisite  work  of  the  late-fourteenth-century  miniaturists,  which 
forms  a  special  branch  of  study,  there  is  nothing  to  bridge  the 
immense  gulf  that  divides  Melchior  Broederlam,  the  earliest 
known  Flemish  painter,  from  the  brothers  Van  Eyck,  whose 
earliest  known  work,  the  wonderful  Ghent  polyptych  of  The 
Adoration  of  the  Lamb,  is,  if  not  quite  the  starting-point,  the 
noblest  achievement  of  the  Early  Flemish  school.  The  inven- 
tion of  oil-painting,  in  the  sense  of  the  word  as  it  is  applied 
to-day,  with  which  the  Van  Eycks  are  credited,  no  doubt 
contributed  largely  towards  this  amazingly  sudden  progress; 
but  their  art  also  marks  a  new  era  in  the  conception  of  life 
and  pictorial  form.  An  ardent  love  of  truth  and  nature  takes 
the  place  of  the  earlier  vague  idealism.  At  the  same  time, 
the  realism  of  the  brothers  Van  Eyck  and  their  followers, 
notwithstanding  its  insistence  on  literal  truth  in  the  repre- 
sentation of  frequently  ugly  details,  was  kept  in  check  by 
deep  sentiment,  love  of  splendid  colour,  and  a  great  sense  of 
style  in  composition.  Details,  even  in  the  far-away  distance, 
were  certainly  elaborated  with  minute  precision,  but  they  are 
never  unduly   obtrusive,   and   are  invariably   subordinated  to  the 

main  motive. 

123 


124  THE  LOUVRE 


JAN  VAN  EYCK 


The  earliest  important  Flemish  painting  in  the  Louvre  is  the 
famous  Virgin  and  Child  with  the  Chancell(yr  Rolin  (No.  1986,  Plate 
XVI.)  by  Jan  van  Eyck  (c.  1390-1441),  which  was  taken  by  order 
of  Napoleon  i,  from  the  Collegiate  Church  of  Autun  in  Burgundy. 
In  a  three-aisled  colonnaded  hall  with  stilted  arches  and  pavement 
of  geometrical  inlay  is  seen  Nicholas  Rolin,  Chancellor  of  Burgundy 
and  Brabant,  kneeling  at  a  prayer-desk  before  the  Virgin,  on 
whose  right  knee  is  seated  the  Infant  Saviour  holding  an  orb 
in  His  left  and  raising  His  right  hand  in  benediction.  An  angel 
with  peacock-blue  wings  is  floating  above  the  Virgin  and  holding  an 
elaborately  wrought  golden  crown  over  her  head.  The  exquisite 
detail  of  the  river  landscape  with  a  view  of  Maastricht  extending 
beyond  the  open  colonnade,  the  sumptuous  brocaded  dresses,  the 
carved  capitals  of  columns  and  piers,  and  many  other  details 
painted  with  inimitable  minute  skill,  help  towards  an  ensemble 
of  jewel-like  splendour  dimmed  but  not  marred  by  the  yellow 
varnish  which  covers  the  surface.  The  Virgin  with  the  Donm  was 
formerly  generally  attributed  to  Hubert,  but  is  most  probably 
a  late  work  by  Jan  van  Eyck,  painted  perhaps  about  1432. 

THE   SCHOOL  OF   TOURNAI 

Neither  Petrus  Christus  (1412  ?-1473),  the  only  master  who 
was  directly  influenced  by  Jan  van  Eyck,  nor  Robert  Campin 
(1365-1444),  who  is  now  known  to  be  identical  with  the  so-called 
"Mattre  de  Flemalle,"  and  who  was  the  head  of  the  important 
Tournai  school,  are  represented  at  the  Louvre.  The  official 
Catalogue  ascribes  to  Campin's  greatest  pupil,  Rogier  van  der 
Weyden  (c.  1400-1464),  the  two  panels  The  Virgin  and  Child 
(No.  2195),  and  The  Deposition  from  the  Cross  (No.  2196),  of  which 


THE  EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  125 

at  least  the  former  is  only  a  school  version  of  an  often  repeated 
theme  by  the  master,  whilst  the  Deposition  is  by  no  means  an  im- 
portant example  of  his  work.  Rogier  was  born  at  Tournai,  but 
went  to  Brussels  after  1432,  and  practised  in  that  city  until  his 
death  in  1464.  A  journey  to  Italy  in  1449  did  not  appreciably 
affect  his  art,  which  always  retained  an  archaic  flavour,  especially 
in  the  rather  tortured  rendering  of  the  nude.  In  this  respect, 
and  also  in  his  utter  disregard  of  beauty  (except  the  beauty  of 
rhythmic  line),  he  compares  unfavourably  with  the  brothers  Van 
Eyck,  as  may  be  clearly  seen  on  comparing  his  work  with  Jan  van 
Eyck's  Virgin  and  Donor.  His  occasional  use  of  gold  backgrounds, 
as  in  the  Virgin  and  Child  (No.  2195),  is  another  archaic  trait. 

The  hand  of  a  nameless  contemporary  and  follower  of  Campin 
and  Rogier  van  der  Weyden,  who  is  also  represented  at  the  Galleries 
of  Vienna,  Turin,  and  Antwerp,  is  to  be  recognised  in  the  small 
panel  of  The  Annunciation  (No.  2202),  which  was  formerly  attributed 
to  the  much  later  painter  Lucas  van  Leyden,  and  has  also  been 
claimed  to  be  only  a  copy  of  a  picture  by  the  Mattre  de  Flemalle. 


HANS   MEMLINC 

The  influence  of  Rogier  van  der  Weyden  determined  the  entire 
course  taken  by  the  Flemish  school  until  its  decline  with  the 
introduction  of  those  Italian  Renaissance  tendencies  which  only 
became  a  vital  factor  and  led  to  the  birth  of  a  new  Flemish  art 
through  the  genius  of  Rubens.  Again,  Rogier's  chief  pupil, 
Dierick  Bouts  (c.  1410-1475),  is  unrepresented  at  the  Louvre.  In 
the  art  of  Hans  Memlinc  (c.  1430?-1494),  who  was  the  founder  of 
the  great  school  of  Bruges,  may  be  found  clear  traces  of  the  influ- 
ence of  Rogier  and  of  Bouts,  although  we  have  no  certain  knowledge 
as  to  that  master's  actual  pupilage.  He  may  have  been  born 
at  Momlingen,  near  Aschaffenburg  on  the   Main,   and  apparently 


126  THE  LOUVRE 

had  already  risen  to  fame  as  a  painter  before  1467,  the  date  of 
his  great  altarpiece  at  Dantzig.  By  that  time  he  was  settled 
at  Bruges.  Mr.  W.  H.  J.  Weale's  researches  have  shown  that  the 
legend,  according  to  which  Memlinc  first  came  to  Bruges  as  a 
wounded  soldier  and  was  nursed  back  to  health  at  the  Hospital 
of  St.  John,  is  not  founded  on  fact.  It  is  probable  that 
Memlinc  served  his  apprenticeship  under  some  Cologne  painter, 
but  all  theories  regarding  his  early  life  must  remain  largely 
conjectural. 

What  is  of  real  importance  is  that  he  introduced  into  the 
detailed  realism  of  his  precursors  a  note  of  pious  fervour  and 
tender  ideahsm,  which  is  the  nearest  approach  in  Northern  art 
to  the  angelic  sweetness  of  Fra  Giovanni  da  Fiesole.  Not  without 
good  reason  has  he  been  called  "the  Fra  Angehco  of  the  North." 
Fromentin  was  certainly  right  in  saying  that  "Van  Eyck  saw 
with  his  eyes,  Memlinc  begins  to  see  with  his  soul."  It  is  this 
warmth  of  feeling  that  makes  Memlinc  the  most  lovable  painter 
of  the  Flemish  school,  for  he  could  neither  rival  the  dramatic  power 
and  realistic  truth  of  the  Van  Eycks,  nor  the  firm  draughtsmanship 
of  Van  der  Weyden,  nor  Bouts's  skill  in  landscape  painting.  Nor 
did  he  take  full  advantage  of  the  possibilities  of  the  oil  technique, 
his  method  remaining  that  of  the  tempera  painters,  although  he 
availed  himself  of  the  new  medium. 

The  earliest  work  by  Memlinc  in  the  great  French  national 
collection  is  the  charming  little  diptych,  painted  about  1475,  and 
representing  on  one  leaf  The  Mystic  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine  (No. 
2027),  and  on  the  other  The,  Donor,  John  du  Celier,  presented  hy 
St.  John  (No.  2027a).  In  the  first  the  Virgin  is  seen  seated  in 
a  flowering  meadow  in  fi-ont  of  a  rose-covered  trellis  and  supporting 
the  Infant  Christ,  who  bends  forward  to  place  the  ring  on  the 
finger  of  St.  Catherine  on  the  left.  Behind  the  saintly  bride 
are  St.   Agnes  and   St.   Cecilia  ;    whilst   the  group  on  the  right 


THE  EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  127 

comprises  St.  Barbara,  with  St.  Margaret  and  St.  Lucy,  all  ac- 
companied by  their  characteristic  attributes.  On  the  other  leaf 
the  Donor  is  seen  kneeling,  with  hands  joined  in  prayer,  in  front 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  who  is  pointing  to  Our  Lord.  The  land- 
scape background  shows,  on  the  left,  the  Apocalyptic  vision  of 
St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  on  the  right,  St.  George  ifighting 
the  Dragon.  This  leaf,  after  passing  through  the  collection  of 
Mr.  Herz  and  Mr.  Heath,  was  presented  to  the  Louvre  in  1895 
by  Mme.  Andre,  and  was  thus  reunited  with  its  companion,  which 
had  been  bequeathed  to  the  Gallery  fourteen  years  earlier  by 
M.  E.  Gatteaux.  It  is  on  the  whole  in  an  excellent  state  of 
preservation,  although  some  of  the  accessories  in  the  background 
are  so  thinly  painted  that  they  have  almost  disappeared. 

MEMLINC'S    "VIRGIN   AND   CHILD,   WITH   DONORS" 

About  1490  Memlinc  must  have  painted  the  admirable  Virgin 
and  Child,  with  Donors  (No.  2026),  which  was  commissioned  by 
James  Floreins,  a  member  of  the  Bruges  Merchant  Grocers'  Guild, 
but  subsequently  found  its  way  to  Spain,  whence  it  was  taken 
to  France  by  General  d'Armagnac.  The  Donor,  who  is  kneeling 
on  the  left,  in  front  of  his  seven  sons,  is  presented  by  St.  James 
the  Great,  the  same  office  being  performed  by  St.  Dominic  for 
Floreins's  wife  and  her  twelve  daughters,  on  the  opposite  side. 
The  scene  is  laid  in  a  Romanesque  church,  with  openings  at  either 
side,  through  which  glimpses  of  the  landscape  beyond  are  obtained. 
The  characterisation  of  all  the  faces,  which  bear  a  strong  family 
likeness,  is  as  admirable  as  the  painting  of  the  noble  architecture. 
Remarkable,  too,  is  the  effect  of  perfect  symmetry  obtained  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  two  unequal  groups  through  the  simple 
device  of  placing  the  Virgin  and  Child  more  towards  the  less 
crowded  side,  although  the  canopy  is  in  the  exact  middle  of  the 


128  THE  LOUVRE 

panel.  This  altarpiece  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  important 
works  by  Memlinc  that  are  to  be  found  outside  Belgium. 

The  two  little  panels,  >Si^.  John  the  Baptist  (No.  2024),  and 
St.  Mary  Magdalene  (No.  2025),  both  standing  in  a  landscape  with 
small  scenes  from  their  respective  legends,  formed  originally, 
with  two  further  panels  representing  St.  Christopher  and  St. 
Stephen,  the  shutters  of  a  triptych.  The  centre  part  had  dis- 
appeared before  the  wings,  carefully  sawn  through  the  thickness 
of  the  panels  so,  as  to  separate  the  obverse  from  the  reverse,  came 
into  the  possession  of  Lucien  Bonaparte,  and  afterwards  of  William  ii. 
of  Holland.  The  two  Saints  now  at  the  Louvre  were  purchased  in 
1851  for  £469. 

In  1908  the  Louvre  obtained,  at  the  high  price  of  £8000,  the 
Portrait  of  an  Old  Lady  (Plate  XVII.),  to  which  attention  was  first 
drawn  at  the  Bruges  Exhibition  in  1902,  when  it  was  shown  by 
M.  Nardus,  from  whom  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  M.  Kleinberger. 
Both  the  Paris  portrait,  which  is  drawn  with  exquisite  precision 
but  has  apparently  suffered  from  over-cleaning,  and  its  companion, 
the  portrait  of  this  anonymous  lady's  husband  at  the  Berlin 
Museum,  were  until  1884  in  the  Meazzu  collection  in  Milan. 

The  triptych  (No.  2028)  with  {a)  The  Resurrection,  (b)  The 
Ascension,  and  (c)  The  Martyrdom  of  St.  Sebastian,  which  was 
bought  at  Turin  in  1860  for  £540,  and  is  officially  considered  to 
be  of  doubtful  authenticity,  is  included  by  Mr.  Weale  in  his 
catalogue  of  Memlinc's  works. 

GERARD   DAVID 

The  reconstruction  and  the  rescuing  from  oblivion  of  the  artistic 
personality  of  Gerard  David,  begun  by  Mr.  Weale  and  completed 
by  Freiherr  von  Bodenhausen,  is  one  of  the  triumphs  of  the  modern 
scientific  method  of  criticism.     The  Louvre  is  fortunate  in  possessing 


PLATE   XVII.— HANS   MEMLINO 

(1430  ?-1494) 

J:ARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

No.— *.— PORTRAIT  OF  AN  OLD  LADY 

Slie  is  seen  in  full  i'ace  and  at  lialf-length,  wearing  the  costume  of  the  period  ;  her  hands  are  super- 
posed ;  landscape  background  to  the  left,  with  a  winding  sandy  path.     A  porphyry  column  to  the  right. 

Painted  in  oil  on  paneh 

1  ft.  2i  in.   X  1  ft.     (0-36  x  0-30.) 

*  This  picture  has  not  yet  received  an  official  number. 


THE  EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  129 

two  important  examples  from  the  brush  of  this  master,  who,  born 
at  Ouwater  in  Holland  about  1460,  was  in  his  early  studies  in- 
fluenced by  Albert  van  Ouwater,  but,  after  settling  at  Bruges  in 
1483,  came  under  the  spell  of  Van  Eyck,  Bouts,  and  above  all 
of  Memlinc,  whom  he  succeeded  as  leader  of  the  Bruges  school. 
On  his  death  in  1523,  the  supremacy  of  that  school  came  to  an 
end,  and  passed  on  to  the  city  of  Antwerp,  which  by  that  time 
had  also  superseded  Bruges  as  a  commercial  centre.  Gerard  David 
was  not  Memlinc's  equal  as  regards  intimate  charm,  but  in  his  work 
is  to  be  found  a  summing-up  of  all  the  achievement  of  the  Flemish 
Quattrocento — "the  last  concentrated  expression  of  the  aims  of 
all  the  great  masters  of  that  fertile  age." 

After  having  been  successively  attributed  to  Van  Eyck,  Van  der 
Weyden,  Memlinc,  and  David's  pupil  Ysenbrant,  the  Marriage  at 
Cana  (No.  1957,  Plate  XVIII.)  is  now  generally  admitted  to  be 
designed  and  partly  executed  by  Gerard  David,  although  the  panel 
shows  unmistakable  evidence  of  being  completed  by  another  and  less 
skilful  hand.  Mr.  Weale  has  shown,  on  the  strength  of  a  certain 
document,  that  the  picture  may  have  been  finished  by  Ysenbrant, 
but  he  has  been  unable  to  establish  that  the  document  quoted  by 
him  refers  to  this  particular  picture.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
David  himself  painted  the  figure  of  the  Donor,  kneeling  on  the  left, 
a  marvellous  example  of  early  portraiture,  and  the  Donor's  son, 
the  Christ,  and  the  boy  carrying  the  cake.  Some  of  the  other 
heads  are  almost  wooden  in  their  hardness.  The  head  of  the 
Dominican  looking  into  the  hall  through  an  opening  beyond  which 
is  to  be  seen  the  Place  du  Saint-Sang,  at  Bruges,  is  clearly  an 
afterthought,  and  is  introduced  so  clumsily  that  the  wall  and  the 
page-boy  with  the  cake-dish  really  leave  no  room  for  the  friar's 
body.  There  is  a  curious  lack  of  spiritual  cohesion  in  the  picture — 
the  majority  of  the  figures  look  away  from  the  Saviour  as  well 

as  from  the  bride,  although  the  significance  of  the  moment  is  such 
17 


130  THE  LOUVRE 

as  to  demand  a  concentration  of  everybody's  attention  on  the  Christ. 
The  picture,  of  which  there  are  several  replicas,  notably  one  at 
the  Stockholm  Museum  by  David's  pupil  Ambrosius  Benson,  was 
until  1580  in  the  Chapel  of  the  Saint-Sang  at  Bruges,  and  then 
in  the  collection  of  Louis  xiv.,  from  which  it  passed  into  the  Louvre. 
The  triptych  (No.  2202a)  of  the  Virgin  and  Child,  with  Two 
Angels,  in  the  centre,  and  Two  Donors  presented  hy  St.  John  the 
Baptist  and  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  on  the  wings,  is  officially 
catalogued  as  an  anonymous  picture  of  the  Flemish  sixteenth- 
century  school,  but  is  unquestionably  an  early  work  of  Gerard 
David.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  male  Donor  is  the  same 
as  the  Donor  in  the  Marriage  at  Cana,  though  younger  in  years, 
and  that  the  delightful  and  strangely  Italian  puiti  on  the  capitals 
of  the  columns  that  flank  the  Virgin's  throne  recur  again,  reversed, 
in  David's  Judgment  of  Camhyses,  at  Bruges.  The  Adam  and  Eve  on 
the  outside  of  the  shutters  are  inspired  by  the  corresponding  figures 
on  the  great  Van  Eyck  altarpiece  at  Ghent.  The  Louvre  triptych 
was  bought  at  the  Garriga  sale  in  Madrid,  in  1890,  for  £248. 


HIERONYMUS   BOSCH 

Before  passing  on  to  the  school  founded  at  Antwerp  by  Quentin 
Matsys  (c.  1466-1530),  mention  should  be  made  of  Hieronymus 
Bosch  van  Aeken  (c.  1462-1516),  who,  a  follower  of  Ouwater,  has 
as  much  right  to  be  counted  among  the  masters  of  the  Dutch  as 
of  the  Flemish  school.  Of  his  life  we  know  but  little.  His 
pictures  reveal  that  realistic  observation  of  everyday  life  which  was 
to  become  the  characteristic  of  the  Dutch  school ;  but,  added  to  it, 
there  is  a  tendency  towards  the  grotesque  which  made  him  delight 
in  subjects  that  gave  him  full  scope  for  the  invention  of  weird 
monsters,  devils,  and  spectres,  such  as  the  demons  in  The  Damned 
(No.  1900),  which  is  attributed  to  Bosch  in  the  official  Catalogue, 


PLATE   XVIII.— GEEAED   DAVID 

(1460  ?-1523) 

EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

No.  1957.— THE  MARRIAGE   AT  CAN  A 

(Les  Noces  de  Cana) 

The  scene  takes  place  in  a  riclily  appointed  chamber,  which  on  the  left  side  looks  out  on  to  the  Place  du 
Saint-Sang  at  Bruges.  The  Bride  is  seated  on  the  farther  side  of  the  table ;  towards  the  left  the  Virgin 
bows  her  head  in  the  direction  of  the  Christ.  In  the  left-hand  corner  of  the  composition  kneels  the  Donor, 
wearing  the  costume  of  a  Provost  of  the  Company  of  the  Holy  Blood  ;  on  the  right  kneels  the  Female 
Donor.     Guests  and  servants  variously  disposed  complete  the  picture. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

3  ft.  2  in.  4  X  ft.  SJ  in.     (096  x  1-28.) 


t^J 


THE  EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  131 

but  is,  like  its  companion,  Heaven,  at  the  Lille  Museum,  the  work 
of  the  unknown  painter  of  the  famous  Last  Judgment  at  Dantzig, 
which  has  by  various  experts  been  given  in  turn  to  Jan  van  Eyck, 
Rogier  van  der  Weyden,  and  Memlinc.  There  is  at  the  Louvre 
a  drawing  which  corresponds  to  so  remarkable  a  degree  with  the 
panel  No.  1900,  that  it  has  long  been  held  to  be  a  study  from  the 
same  hand.  This  drawing  is,  however,  more  probably  an  early  study 
by  the  German  master  Martin  Schongauer  after  the  Louvre  panel. 
The  picture  was  formerly  in  the  Duch^tel  collection,  and  was  given, 
to  the  Louvre  by  the  Due  de  la  Tremoille. 


THE  ANTWERP  SCHOOL 

Quentin  Matsys,  the  painter  of  The  Banker  and  his  Wife  (No, 
2029,  Plate  XIX.),  of  which  numerous  replicas  and  variants  are 
known,  some  probably  from  the  hand  of  his  pupil  Marinus  van 
Roymerswaele,  still  owes  his  training  to  the  primitives  of  his  race, 
but  heralds  the  new  era  which  was  to  culminate  in  the  art  of 
Rubens,  by  passing  from  the  earlier  minute  precision  of  detail  to 
a  certain  breadth  of  style  and  boldness  of  brushwork,  necessitated 
partly  by  the  larger  scale  adopted  for  his  figures.  Neither  The 
Saviour  Blessing  (No.  2030)  nor  The  Virgin  and  Child  (No.  2030a), 
both  of  which  are  catalogued  under  his  name,  can  be  accepted  as 
authentic ;  but  the  interesting  genre  group  of  The  Banker  and  his 
Wife  is  not  only  fully  signed  and  dated 

QVENTIN    MATSYS,     SCHILDER,     1514, 

but  is  unmistakably  the  work  of  his  brush,  although  the  woman's 
face  and  hands  appear  to  have  been  badly  repainted.  It  was  bought 
in  1806  at  the  low  price  of  £72.  The  best  version  of  the  same 
subject  is  the  one  in  the  Sigmaringen  Gallery.  By  Quentin  Matsys 
is  also,  probably,  the  Pieta  (No.  2203),  which  is  catalogued  officially 


132  THE   LOUVRE 

as  "  Flemish  xvith  Century."  Quentin's  son  Jan,  who  followed  his 
father's  tradition  and  achieved  considerable  distinction,  is  the  painter 
of  the  hideous  David  and  Bathsheha  (No.  2030b),  which  bears  the 
inscription 

1562.    lOANES   MAS8IIS    PINGEBAT. 

Next  in  importance  among  the  Antwerp  masters  is  Jan  Gossart 
(c.  1470-1533?),  better  known  as  Mabuse,  from  the  name  of  his 
native  town  Maubeuge  in  the  Hainault.  In  his  early  work  he 
followed  the  tradition  of  the  great  masters  of  his  own  country,  but 
a  journey  to  Italy  in  1508  made  him  change  his  manner,  and 
led  him  to  adopt,  together  with  the  amplitude  of  Italian  design, 
a  certain  floridness  which  compares  unfavourably  with  the  honest 
realism  of  his  precursors  and  which  led  to  the  rapid  decadence 
of  the  Flemish  school.  In  the  magnificent  portrait  of  Jean 
Carondelet,  Perpetual  Chancellor  of  Flanders  (No.  1997,  Plate  XX.), 
although  it  was  painted  as  late  as  1517,  he  is  still  faithful  to  the 
great  tradition  of  his  country  for  honest,  straightforward,  shrewdly 
observed,  and  delicately  wrought  portraiture.  An  inscription  on 
the  top  of  the  arched  gilt  frame  reads : 

EEPRfiSENTACION    DE    MESSIRE    JEHAN    CARONDELET, 
HAVLT    DOTEN    DE   BESANQON,    EN    SON   EAGE   DE   48A, 

and,  below,  "  fait  l'an  1517."  In  a  niche  behind  the  panel  are  the 
letters  "i  c"  entwined  with  strings,  and  the  motto  "matvra."  The 
portrait  was,  therefore,  obviously  painted  just  before  Carondelet 
accompanied  Charles  v.  to  Spain  in  1517. 

This  portrait  panel,  together  with  The  Virgin  and  Child  (No. 
1998),  which  bears  on  the  frame  the  inscription 

MEDIATRIX    NOSTRA    QVB    EST    POST    DEVM 
SPES    SOLA    TVO     FILIO     ME     REPRESENTA, 

and    the    signature     "johannes    melbodie    pingebat,"    formed    a 


PLATE   XIX,— QUENTIN   MATSYS 

(1466  ?-1530) 

FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

No.  2029.— THE  BANKER  AND  HIS  WIFE 

(Le  Banquier  et  sa  femme) 

On  the  far  side  of  a  table  covered  with  a  green  cloth  and  strewn  with  various  objects,  which  include 
a  crystal  cup  and  a  circular  mirror,  are  seated  the  banker,  wearing  a  dark  blue  robe  edged  with  fur,  and  his 
wife  who  is  turning  over  the  leaves  of  an  illuminated  book  of  hours.  At  the  back  are  shelves,  ou  which  are 
displayed  books  and  many  decorative  objects. 

Painted  in  oil  on  i)anel. 

Signed  on  a  roll  of  paper  in  the  background  : — "quentin  matsys,  schilder,  1514." 

2  ft.  5^  in    X  1  ft.  11|  in.     (074  x  0-60.) 


THE  EARLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  133 

diptych  which  was  bought  in  1847  from  a  Valenciennes  architect 
for  the  ridiculous  price  of  £40 !  A  later  portrait  of  Carondelet 
by  Mabuse,  dated  1531,  appeared  in  1907  at  Christie's  under  the 
name  of  C.  Amberger,  and  realised  the  price  of  £3885.  Another 
portrait  of  Carondelet,  by  B,  van  Orley,  is  in  the  Munich  Gallery, 
where  it  is  officially  ascribed  to  Quentin  Matsys,  who  is  probably 
the  painter  of  yet  another  portrait  of  the  Chancellor  which  was 
recently  in  the  Duch^tel  collection  in  Paris.  The  Portrait  of  a 
Benedictine  (No.  1999)  bears  the  date  1526  and  the  signature 

JOANNE   MALBOLD    PINGB. 

The  decline  of  the  Antwerp  school  through  the  introduction 
of  Italian  mannerisms  is  illustrated  in  Young  Tobias  restoring  Sight 
to  his  Father  (No.  2001),  a  fully  signed  late  picture  by  Jan  van 
Hemessen,  who  flourished  in  that  city  towards  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  and  in  whose  art  the  last  traces  of  the  great 
national  tradition  disappear. 


BAREND    VAN    ORLEY 

Of  the  school  that  flourished  in  Brussels  before  Italianism  ap- 
peared in  the  person  of  Barend  van  Orley  (c.  1495-1542),  the  only 
name  that  has  come  down  to  posterity  is  that  of  Rogier  van  der 
Weyden's  follower,  Colin  de  Coter,  thanks  to  the  clear  inscription 

Colin  de  Coter  pinxit  me  in  BrahancwL  Bruxelle 

on  the  hem  of  the  dress  of  the  kneeling  Magdalen  in  The  Holy 
Women  (No.  1952b),  which,  with  The  Trinity  (No.  1952a)  and 
another  lost  panel,  probably  originally  formed  a  triptych.  The 
signed  wing  was  presented  to  the  Gallery  in  1903;  whilst  the 
Trinity  centre-piece  was  bought  two  years  later  from  the  Abb^ 
Toussaint  at  St.  Omer  for  £120. 


134  THE  LOUVRE 

Like  Mabuse,  Barend  van  Orley,  after  showing  in  his  early 
work  clear  traces  of  his  descent  from  the  Flemish  primitives, 
drank  deeply  at  the  fountain  of  Italian  art.  He  was  profoundly 
impressed  by  Raphael,  from  whom  he  endeavoured,  with  a  certain 
degree  of  success,  to  learn  the  noble  flow  of  drapery  and  the 
harmonious  disposition  of  the  design.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
sacrificed  the  lustrous  richness  of  Early  Flemish  colour  and  became 
addicted  to  dull  grey  shadows  and  pinkish  lights.  His  Holy  Family 
(No.  2067a)  does  not  rank  with  his  finest  works,  The  Last  Judgment 
at  Antwerp  and  the  Holy  Family  at  Liverpool.  The  architectural 
setting,  with  a  statue  of  Neptune  in  a  square  in  the  background, 
indicates  the  advent  of  the  Renaissance.  The  picture  was  bought 
at  the  Otlet  sale  in  Brussels,  in  1902,  for  £540.  With  Barend 
van  Orley  closes  the  chapter  of  the  Early  Flemish  school.  Indeed, 
he  was  rather  the  first  of  the  new  era  than  the  last  of  the 
primitives. 


PLATE   XX.— JAN    MABUSE 

(1470?-1533?) 

EAKLY  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

No.  1997.— PORTRAIT  OF  JEAN  CARONDELET,  PERPETUAL  CHANCELLOR  OF  FLANDERS 

(Portrait  de  Jean  Carondelet,  chancel ier  perpetuel  de  Flandre  (1469-1544)) 

He  is  bare-headed  and  wears  a  blue  robe  ;  he  is  turned  three-quarters  to  the  right ;  his  hands  are  folded 
in  prayer. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

Inscribed  on  the  frame  : — "  representacion  de  messire  jehan  carondelet,  havlt  doyen  de  bksanjon, 
EN  SON  EAGE  DE  48l,"  and,  below,  "fait  l'an  1517." 

1  ft.  5  in.  X  10|  in.    (0-43  x  0-27.) 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

THE  period  of  the  great  struggle  of  the  Netherlands  for 
religious  and  political  independence  from  the  yoke  of  Spain 
and  the  Inquisition  was  not  propitious  for  the  fostering 
of  the  Fine  Arts.  Not  only  did  the  troubled  provinces,  as  was 
quite  natural,  slacken  in  artistic  production,  but  a  vast  portion  of 
the  treasures  owned  by  churches  and  monastic  establishments  were 
destroyed  by  the  fanaticism  of  Protestant  iconoclasts.  The  separa- 
tion of  the  Protestant  North  from  the  Catholic  South  by  the 
Utrecht  Union  in  1579  became  in  a  way  the  determining  factor 
for  the  future  course  of  painting  in  Holland  and  in  the  Belgic 
provinces.  The  Dutchmen  practically  had  no  further  use  for 
religious  painting,  and  devoted  themselves  more  exclusively  to  the 
domestic  genre,  portraiture,  and  landscape;  whilst  the  Flemings 
applied  themselves  largely  to  infusing  new  vitality  into  the  represen- 
tation of  Scriptural  characters  and  incidents  which,  through  constant 
mechanical  repetition,  had  become  mere  allegorical  hieroglyphics,  or 
generalised  ideas  without  the  all-important  sense  of  pulsating  life. 
This  regeneration  was  the  great  deed  of  Peter  Paul  Rubens 
(1577-1640),  who,  whilst  still  benefiting  from  the  example  of  the 
great  Italians,  remained  the  very  embodiment  of  Flemish  character 
and  thought,  and  became  the  founder  of  the  second  important 
period  of  Flemish  national  art.  He  was  a  man  of  exuberant 
vitality  and  boundless  energy,  endowed  with  a  creative  force  un- 
equalled in  the  whole  history  of  art.  He  must  rank  for  all  time 
among  the  very  giants  of  the  brush,  with  Rembrandt,  Titian,  and 

Velazquez,  his  contribution  to  the  progess  in   pictorial  art  being 

13s 


136  THE  LOUVRE 

the  use  of  pigment  and  sweeping  bnishwork  as  a  constructive 
element — an  advance  as  significant  as  the  Venetians'  admission  of 
light  into  the  pictorial  scheme,  which  with  the  Florentines  was 
based  entirely  on  linear  design. 


PIETER    BRUEGHEL 

But  before  considering  the  magnificent  array  of  close  on  fifty 
authentic  works  by  the  master  which  form  part  of  the  French 
national  collection,  reference  will  have  to  be  made  to  a  few  Flemish 
artists  of  the  singularly  barren  decades  that  precede  the  advent  of 
Rubens.  First  and  foremost  among  these  is  Pieter  Brueghel 
(or  Breughel)  the  Elder  (1530-1569),  who  was  born  at  Breda  in 
1530,  became  a  pupil  of  Pieter  Koeck,  and  died  at  Brussels  in  1569. 
In  spite  of  his  early  travels  in  Italy — which  were  then  already 
considered  indispensable  for  the  completion  of  an  artist's  training 
— he  remained  unaffected  by  the  all-pervading  Italian  influence. 
He  was  pure  Flemish  in  thought  and  expression,  and  devoted 
himself  to  the  realistic  painting  of  peasant  life.  Certain  realistic 
features  which  make  his  pictures  sometimes  appear  obscene  and 
coarse  to  modern  eyes  are  merely  an  expression  of  the  humour 
of  his  age.  The  exquisite  little  painting.  The  Beggars  (No.  1917), 
which  is  fully  signed 

PETER    BRUEGHEL,     M  D  L    VIII, 

is  probably  some  satirical  political  allusion  to  the  revolutionary 
party  who  called  themselves  the  Gueux  (beggars).  A  similar 
political  significance  is  probably  the  intention  of  The  Parable 
of  the  Blind  (No.  1917a).  The  single  file  of  blind  men  following 
their  blind  leaders  into  a  river  is  meant  to  satirise  the  moral 
blindness  of  the  artist's  compatriots  following  their  political 
leaders  into  disaster.     This  excellent  version  of  Brueghel's  famous 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH   SCHOOL  137 

masterpiece  at  Naples  was  bought  at  the  Leys  sale  at  Antwerp, 
in  1894,  for  £724.  The  type  of  picture  to  which  the  elder  Brueghel 
owes  his  sobriquet  "  Peasant  Brueghel "  is  exemplified  at  the  Louvre 
by  two  little  panels,  A  Village  (No.  1918)  and  Peasants  Dancing 
(No.  1918a),  which  can,  however,  only  be  accepted  as  school  pictures. 


JAN    BRUEGHEL 

Of  Brueghel's  two  sons,  Pieter  the  younger,  known  as  "  Hell " 
Brueghel,  is  not  represented  at  the  Louvre,  which,  on  the  other 
hand,  boasts  possession  of  eight  examples  from  the  brush  of 
"Peasant"  Brueghel's  second  son,  Jan  (1568-1625),  known  to  fame 
as  "  Velvet "  Brueghel,  either  owing  to  his  love  of  splendid  apparel 
or  to  the  velvety  softness  of  his  brush.  He  began  as  a  still-life  and 
flower  painter,  in  which  capacity  he  often  collaborated  with  Rubens. 
Having  journeyed  to  Rome  in  1593,  he  devoted  himself  more  ex- 
clusively to  landscape  enlivened  with  many  small  figures,  for  which 
some  Scriptural  or  mythological  subject  generally  provided  the 
excuse.  Where  his  pictures  contain  figures  on  a  larger  scale,  they 
are  generally  put  in  by  Rubens,  Rottenhammer,  or  Van  Balen.  The 
last-named  is  certainly  responsible  for  the  figures  in  Air  (No.  1920), 
one  of  a  series  of  the  Four  Elements,  painted  by  Jan  Brueghel 
for  his  Roman  patron,  Cardinal  Federigo  Borromeo,  in  1621.  To 
the  same  series  belongs  Earth,  or  The  Earthly  Paradise  (No.  1919), 
a  subject  often  repeated  by  him,  as  for  instance  in  the  versions  at 
The  Hague  and  at  Budapest.  Of  his  other  pictures  at  the  Louvre 
The  Bridge  of  Talavera  (No.  1925),  and  the  Landscape  (No.  1926), 
are  signed  and  dated  brueghel,  1619,  and  j.  brtjeghel,  1620,  re- 
spectively. The  Battle  of  Arhela  (No.  1921)  is  a  characteristic  work 
with  many  minutely  wrought  figures.  The  Landscapes  (Nos.  1923 
and  1924)  are  of  doubtful  authenticity,  and  were  formerly  attributed 

to  Paul  Bril.     They  are  not  now  exhibited. 

i8  ^ 


138  THE  LOUVRE 

There  are  scarcely  any  Flemish  characteristics  in  the  art  of 
Paul  Bril  (1556-1626),  the  younger  brother  and  pupil  of  Matthias 
Bril.  He  was  born  at  Antwerp,  but  worked  nearly  all  his  life  in 
Rome.  There  is  little  to  distinguish  this  precursor  of  Poussin 
in  the  art  of  landscape  from  his  Italian  contemporaries.  In 
Duck  Shooting  (No.  1908),  Diana  and  her  Nymphs  (No.  1909),  and 
Pan  and  Syrinx  (No.  1911)  the  figures  are  believed  to  have  been 
painted  in  by  Annibale  Carracci.  The  Fishermen  (No.  1910)  bears 
his  signature  pa.  brilli,  and  the  date  1624. 


THE    FRANCK    FAMILY 

Although  the  Louvre  owns  no  picture  by  Frans  Floris,  the 
head  of  the  Italianising  mid-sixteenth-century  Antwerp  school, 
his  uninteresting  style  may  be  studied  in  The  Story  of  Esther 
(No.  1989)  by  his  pupil  Frans  Franck  (1542-1616).  To  that  second- 
rate  artist's  son,  Frans  Franck  the  Younger  (1581-1642),  who 
already  benefited  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  example  of  Rubens, 
is  given  in  the  ofl&cial  Catalogue  Ulysses  recognising  Achilles  among 
the  Daitghters  of  Lycomedes  (No.  1991a).  The  Parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  (No.  1990),  which  is  also  catalogued  under  his 
name,  is  obviously  by  his  son  Frans  Franck  iii.,  since  the  date 
1663  precedes  the  signature,  and  F.  Franck  the  younger  died 
in  1642. 

Frans  Pourbus  the  Younger  (1569-1622)  was  born  at  Antwerp, 
but  spent  the  later  part  of  his  life  in  Paris,  where,  like  his  father, 
he  enjoyed  considerable  reputation  as  a  portrait  painter.  He  had 
previously  been  working  at  the  Mantuan  Court,  and  became  painter 
to  Marie  de  Medicis  after  1609.  Although  he  occasionally  produced 
altarpieces  like  the  rather  uninspired  Last  Supper  (No.  2068) 
and  St.  Francis  receiving  the  Stigmata  (No.  2069),  he  was  essentially 
a  portrait  painter.     In  this  capacity  he  belongs  rather  to  the  age 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  139 

that  was  coming  to  a  close  than  to  the  new  era  initiated  by  Rubens. 
His  portraits  are  quite  soundly  painted,  rich  in  colour,  and 
convincing  as  likenesses,  but  lack  depth  of  character  and  suavity 
of  touch.  By  far  his  best  pictures  at  the  Louvre  are  the  Portrait 
of  Henri  IV.  (No.  2071)  and  the  large  Portrait  of  Marie  de  Medicis 
(No.  2072),  in  which  the  details  of  the  costume  are  particularly 
noteworthy.  Less  important  is  another  Portrait  of  Henri  IV. 
(No.  2070),  and  one  of  Guillaume  du  Vair  (No.  2074). 

Octavius  van  Veen,  or  Otto  Venius  (1558-1629),  the  painter 
of  The  Artist  and  his  Family  (No.  2191),  owes  his  fame  more  to  the 
fact  that  he  was  one  of  the  three  masters  under  whom  Rubens 
studied  than  to  any  intrinsic  merit  of  his  art. 


PETER    PAUL    RUBENS 

The  Louvre  owes  its  almost  unequalled  wealth  in  paintings 
by  Rubens  to  the  master's  relations  with  Marie  de  Medicis  and 
her  Court ;  and  to  this  reason  is  due  the  fact  that  by  far  the 
largest  portion  of  the  fifty-one  authentic  works  wholly  or  partly 
from  his  brush,  which  now  form  part  of  this  great  collection,  date 
approximately  from,  or  immediately  before  and  after,  the  time 
during  which  he  was  busy  with  the  famous  series  painted,  by  order 
of  that  queen  for  the  decoration  of  the  Luxembourg  Palace,  and 
now  to  be  seen  in  a  setting  appropriate  to  their  florid  sumptuousness 
in  the  new  Rubens  Gallery  at  the  Louvre.  Even  so,  the  collection 
comprises  examples  of  every  phase  of  the  master's  colossal  activity 
— religious  and  historical  compositions,  allegorical  paintings,  land- 
scapes, portraits,  still  life,  and  even  ^e/ire-pieces,  like  the  Kermesse 
(No.  2115),  in  which  he  successfully  competes  with  Teniers  on  a 
ground  peculiarly  his  own. 

Born  at  Siegen  in  1577,  Rubens  received  his  artistic  education 
at  Antwerp  from  Tobias  Verhaecht,  a   landscape  painter,  Adam 


140  THE  LOUVRE 

van  Noort,  and  O.  van  Veen.  At  the  age  of  twenty-three  he 
went  to  Italy  and  entered  the  service  of  Vincenzo  Gonzaga  of 
Mantua,  studying  in  their  own  country  the  works  of  the  great 
Italian  masters,  and  especially  the  Venetians,  from  whose  glorious 
colour  he  derived  more  benefit  than  from  his  early  training. 
With  the  exception  of  a  journey  to  the  Court  of  Philip  iii. 
at  Madrid,  where  he  was  sent  on  a  mission  by  the  Duke  of 
Mantua  in  1603,  Rubens  spent  the  eight  years  from  1600  to 
1608  in  the  various  Italian  centres,  and  especially  in  Rome, 
where  he  painted,  about  1606,  the  little  Landscape  with  liuins 
(No.  2119),  which  is  of  interest  not  only  as  showing  to  what  degree 
he  was  at  that  time  influenced  by  the  Roman  school,  and  by 
the  Carracci,  but  also  as  being  the  very  first  landscape  known  to 
have  been  produced  by  him.  The  same  view  of  the  Palatine  Hill 
is  to  be  recognised  in  the  background  of  the  Four  Philosophers  at 
the  Pitti  Palace,  and  in  the  portrait  of  Woverius  in  the  Arenberg 
collection.  Of  about  the  same  time,  though  the  figures  would 
appear  to  have  been  added  at  a  considerably  later  date,  is  the 
Landscape  with  a  Rainhow  (No.  2118). 


RUBENS    AT    ANTWERP 

Having  returned  to  Antwerp  in  1608,  and  married  his  first 
wife,  Isabella  Brant,  in  the  following  year,  Rubens,  who  was  now 
made  Court  painter  to  Archduke  Albrecht,  entered  upon  a  period 
of  stupendous  artistic  activity,  which  extended  to  about  1621, 
when  he  began  to  divide  his  time  between  art  and  diplomatic 
missions,  and,  having  previously  organised  a  vast  studio  with  an 
army  of  assistants,  often  left  the  execution  of  his  brilliant  sketch 
designs  to  less  capable  hands.  This  early  Antwerp  period  is  not 
particularly  well  represented  at  the  Louvre,  although  the  collection 
includes  The  Virgin  surrounded  hy  the  Holy  Innocents  (No.  2078) — 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  141 

a  Virgin  of  characteristic  Flemish  coarseness  and  fulness  of  form, 
in  the  midst  of  a  dense  swarm  of  delicious,  plump,  dimpled,  wing- 
less angel-children,  whose  rosy  baby-flesh  is  painted  with  inimitable 
mastery.  The  picture  was  painted  about  1615,  six  years  before 
The  Virgin  and  Child  within  a  Garland  of  Flowers  (No.  2079),  executed 
in  1621  for  Cardinal  Federigo  Borromeo.  The  tasteless  floral 
wreath  in  this  picture,  as  in  the  similar  versions  at  Munich  and 
New  York,  is  from  the  brush  of  Jan  Brueghel.  To  about  the 
year  1615  belongs  also  the  Christ  on  the  Cross,  with  the  Virgin,  the 
Magdalen  and  St.  John  (No.  2082),  which  can,  however,  hardly  be 
entirely  from  the  master's  own  hand.  The  mass  of  unbroken 
vermilion  in  the  robe  of  St.  John  is  one  of  Rubens's  favourite 
devices  at  that  period.  The  Resurrection  of  Lazarus  (No.  2081) 
is  the  original  sketch  for  the  Berlin  picture. 

In  1620,  when  Rubens  undertook  to  paint  a  series  of  thirty- 
nine  Miracles  of  88.  Ignatius  Loyola  and  Franqois  Xavier  for  the 
ceiling  of  the  Jesuit  Church  at  Antwerp,  the  business-like  organi- 
sation of  his  studio  was  an  acknowledged  fact,  as  may  be  gathered 
from  the  terms  of  the  agreement  which  stipulated  that  the 
master  himself  should  provide  the  designs,  though  the  execution 
was  to  be  entrusted  to  his  most  competent  assistants.  The  actual 
paintings  were  destroyed  by  fire  in  1718,  but  of  the  original 
sketches  seventeen  have  been  preserved,  and  are  now  distributed 
between  the  Louvre,  the  Vienna  Academy,  the  Museums  of  Gotha 
and  Brussels,  and  the  Dulwich  Gallery.  The  four  in  the  La  Caze 
collection  at  the  Louvre  are  Abraham's  Sacrifice  (No.  2120),  Abraham 
and  Melchisedek  (No.  2121),  The  Elevation  of  the  Cross  (No.  2122), 
and  The  Coronation  of  the  Virgin  (No.  2123).  The  whole  series, 
but  especially  the  first  two  of  these,  is  remarkable  for  the  boldness 
of  the  foreshortening,  calculated  for  the  position  of  the  panels  on 
the  ceiling,  and  for  the  swift  bravura  and  inimitable  expressive- 
ness of  the  brushwork.      To  the  same  period  belongs  Philopoemen 


142  THE  LOUVRE 

recognised  hy  an   Old    Woman   (No.   2124),    which   is   essentially  a 
brilliant  still-life  study  for  a  lost  picture. 


THE    MEDICIS    SERIES 

"We  come  now  to  the  series  of  twenty-one  large  allegorical 
paintings,  designed  by  Rubens  and  executed  mostly  by  his  pupils, 
from  1621  to  1625,  for  the  decoration  of  the  Luxembourg  Palace 
for  Marie  de  M^dicis,  whose  by  no  means  inspiring  career  had 
to  furnish  the  subjects  for  the  series.  It  was  a  thankless  task 
which  could  only  be  accomplished  by  a  tour  de  force — by  removing 
the  events  of  the  queen's  life  from  actuality  into  the  sphere  of 
mythology  and  allegory.  That  the  strange  mingling  of  the  real 
and  the  ideal  should  sometimes  verge  on  the  grotesque  was 
almost  inevitable — as  inevitable  as  that  the  work  of  his  assistants 
should  have  failed  to  do  full  justice  to  the  master's  conception,  even 
if  it  was  "pulled  together"  by  the  easily  recognisable  touches  added 
by  Rubens  to  the  finished  panels.  The  florid  exuberance  of  design 
and  colour  was  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  purpose  and  the 
surroundings  for  which  the  paintings  were  intended.  It  is  impos- 
sible here  to  enter  into  a  full  description  of  this  extensive  series, 
or  to  define  exactly  Rubens's  share  in  each  of  the  eleven  pictures. 
We  must  confine  ourselves  to  the  brief  enumeration  of  the  subjects 
in  the  order  in  which  they  are  now  to  be  seen  in  the  new  Rubens 
Gallery.  The  series  begins  with  The  Fates  spinning  the  Destiny  of 
Marie  de  Medicis  (No.  2085).  Then  follow  The  Triumph  of  Truth 
(No.  2105) ;  Henri  IV.  receiving  the  Portrait  of  Marie  (No.  2088) ; 
The  Marriage  of  Marie  by  Procuration  with  Henri  IV.  (No.  2089) ; 
Marie  landing  at  Marseilles,  Nov.  s,  1600  (No.  2090) ;  The  Marriage 
at  Lyons,  Dec.  10,  1600  (No.  2091) ;  The  Birth  of  Louis  XIII. 
at  Fontainebleau,  Sept.  27,  1601  (No.  2092) ;  Henri  IV.  leaves  for 
the    War  with   Germany  and  entrusts  the   Government   to  the   Queen 


THE  LATE   FLEMISH  SCHOOL  143 

(No.  2093,  Plate  XXI.) ;  The  Cwonatim  of  the  Queen  (No.  2094) ; 
Apotheosis  of  Henri  IV.  and  the  Queen's  Regency  (No.  2095) ;  The 
Queen's  Journey  to  Pmds-de-Ce  (No.  2097) ;  Exchange  of  the  Two 
Princesses,  Nov.  9,  1615  (No.  2098) ;  The  Prosperous  Regency  (No. 
2099);  The  Majority  of  Louis  XIII.  (No.  2100);  The  Queen's 
Nocturnal  Flight  from  Blois  (No.  2101) ;  The  Reconciliation  of  the 
Qusen  with  h&r  San  (No.  2102) ;  The  ConcluMon  of  Peace  (No.  2103) ; 
and  Marie's  Interview  with  her  Son  (No.  2104).  But  The  Birth  of  Marie 
de  Medieis,  at  Florence,  on  April  26,  1575  (No.  2086) ;  The  Educa- 
tion  of  Marie  by  Minerva,  Mercury,  Apollo,  and  the  Gh-aces  (No. 
2087) ;  and  The  Gods  in  Olympus  protecting  the  Queen's  Government 
(No.  2096),  which  belong  to  the  same  series,  have  been  placed  in 
another  room. 

Of  the  first  and  the  last  paintings  the  Louvre  owns  the 
original  sketch  on  one  panel,  by  Rubens,  for  The  Triumph  of 
Truth  and  The  Fates  spinning  the  Destiny  of  Marie  (No.  2110), 
the  other  preliminary  sketches  being  at  the  Hermitage  and  the 
Munich  Gallery.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  all  these  sketches 
are  designed  in  a  very  light  key,  almost  in  grisaille,  with  touches 
of  rose  and  other  tender  colour  notes,  so  that  apparently  Rubens's 
assistants  were  allowed  great  liberty  in  the  matter  of  colour. 

MfiDICIS    PORTRAITS 

Several  other  pictures  by  Rubens  at  the  Louvre — all  of  them 
portraits — are  more  or  less  directly  connected  with  the  M^dicis 
series,  and  were  painted  between  1621  and  1625.  These  are 
the  Portrait  of  Anne  of  Austria  (No.  2112),  which  was  formerly 
known  as  Elizabeth  of  Bourbon ;  the  Portrait  of  Francesco  de'  Medici 
(No.  2106),  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany,  and  father  of  Marie  de 
M^dicis,  which  was  painted  for  the  Luxembourg  Gallery ;  the 
Portrait  of  Johanna  of  Austria  (No.  2107),  daughter  of  the  Emperor 


144  THE  LOUVRE 

Ferdinand,  and  wife  of  Francesco  de'  Medici ;  the  Portraits  of 
Marie  de  Medicis  (Nos,  2108  and  2109)  (the  former  in  the 
character  of  Bellona,  and  both  studio  works  with  the  final  touches 
added  by  the  master) ;  and  the  Portrait  of  Baron  Henri  de  Vicq 
(No.  2111),  who,  as  Flemish  Ambassador  to  the  French  Court, 
was  instrumental  in  procuring  Rubens  the  important  commission 
for  the  Luxembourg  pictures.  This  admirable  portrait  was 
bought  at  the  King  of  Holland's  sale  in  1850  for  £637. 

To  the  same  period  belongs  the  beautiful  Portrait  of  Susanne 
Fourment  (Rubens's  handsome,  large -eyed  sister-in-law,  whose 
features  are  best  known  from  the  Chapeau  de  Paille  at  the 
National  Gallery),  which  is  still  officially  catalogued  as  Portrait 
of  a  Lady  of  the  Boonen  Family  (No.  2114) ;  and  the  important 
composition  Lot's  Flight  from  Sodom  (No.  2075),  which  bears  the 
rare  full  signature  and  date 

PE. -PA. -RUBENS    FE,    A"      1625, 

to  prove  the  master's  satisfaction  with  his  own  handiwork.  It 
is  a  design  of  carefully  studied  rhythm,  dramatic  expressiveness, 
and  subtly  harmonised  colour,  carried  out  with  the  swift  sureness 
of  his  later  work. 

In  1627,  a  year  before  his  mission  to  Spain  on  behalf  of  the 
Infanta  Isabella,  widow  of  the  Archduke  Albrecht,  Rubens  designed 
for  his  patroness  an  important  series  of  tapestries,  which  were, 
as  was  his  wont  at  that  period,  sketched  out  by  him,  executed  by 
his  assistants,  and  touched  up  by  his  own  hand.  The  tapestries 
were  subsequently  presented  by  the  Infanta  to  a  convent  at  Madrid; 
some  of  the  paintings  for  them  perished  by  fire,  others  were  pre- 
served at  the  Convent  of  Loeches,  near  Madrid.  Two  of  these. 
The  Prophet  Elijah  in  the  Desert  (No.  2076)  and  The  Triumph  of 
Religion  (No.  2083),  were  part  of  General  Sebastiani's  loot  from 
Spain,  and  were  bought  by  the  Louvre  for  £2400 ;    whilst  four 


PLATE   XXI.— SIE  PETER   PAUL  EUBENS 

(1577-1640) 

FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

No.  2093.— HENRI   IV.   LEAVES   FOR  THE  WAR  WITH  GERMANY,   AND  ENTRUSTS  THE 

GOVERNMENT  TO  THE   QUEEN 

(Henri  IV.  part  pour  la  guerre  J'Allemagne  et  confie  a  la  reine  le  gouvernement  du  royaume,  1610) 

The  King,  attended  by  warriors  and  holding  the  banner  of  France,  prepares  to  leave  the  country  to  make 
war  against  Germany  ;  he  hands  the  Globe,  the  emblem  of  State,  to  Marie  de  Medicis  ;  the  Queen  gives  her 
hand  to  the  little  Dauphin,  who  later  became  King  under  the  title  of  Louis  xiii. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

12  ft.  11  in.  X  11  ft.  4  in.     (3-94  x  2-95.) 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  145 

others,  now  at  Grosvenor  House,  were  bought  by  the  Marquis 
of  Westminster  for  £10,500.  Of  about  the  same  date  is  the 
brilliant  Adoration  of  the  Magi  (No.  2077),  with  its  Titianesque 
scheme  of  strong  red,  blue,  and  golden  yellow,  of  which  a  replica 
is  in  an  Irish  private  collection. 


LATE    WORKS    BY    RUBENS 

The  closing  decade  of  Rubens's  life  is  represented  by  five 
pictures  of  considerable  importance.  Of  Qiieen  Tomyris  with  the 
Head  of  Cyrus  (No.  2084)  there  is  an  earlier,  large,  and  deservedly 
famous  version  in  Lord  Darnley's  collection  ;  but  the  Louvre  picture 
exceeds  it  in  beauty  of  design  and  in  unity  of  colour.  It  was 
painted  about  the  same  time  {cca.  1632)  as  Religion  crowned  hy  a 
Genius  (No.  2126),  one  of  the  sketches  for  the  ceiling  at  Whitehall. 
Of  peculiar  interest,  owing  to  its  unfinished  state  which  reveals 
the  master's  method  of  portraiture,  is  the  superb  portrait  group 
of  Helene  Fourment,  the  Artist's  Second  Wife,  and  Two  of  her  Children 
(No.  2113,  Plate  XXII.).  Only  the  heads,  which  are  remarkable  for 
an  intensity  of  expression  that  is  rarely  to  be  found  in  Rubens's  paint- 
ings, are  finished.  All  the  rest  is  loosely  and  thinly  sketched  in  sepia 
heightened  with  swift  touches  of  brighter  colour.  It  was  painted 
about  1636,  which  is  also  the  approximate  date  of  ^  Flemish  Kermesse 
(No.  2115),  an  almost  unique  instance  of  the  master  applying 
the  exuberant  energy  of  his  magic  brush  to  a  subject  in  which 
the  expression  of  intense  vitality  and  full-blooded  sensuousness 
assumes  the  aspect  almost  of  bestiality — which,  however,  in  no  way 
detracts  from  the  artistic  value  of  the  painting.  To  turn  from 
this  to  A  Joust  hy  the  Moat  of  a  Cattle  (No.  2116)  is  to  pass  from 
coarse  realism  to  pure  romanticism,  inspired  probably  by  the 
associations  of  the  picturesque  Castle  of  Steen,  which  Rubens  had 

bought  in  1635,  and  which  forms  the  setting  for  this  scene  of  knightly 

19 


146  THE  LOUVRE 

prowess.  This,  and  the  marvellous  and  strangely  modern  little 
Jjandscape  (No.  2117),  in  which  the  morning  sun  is  seen  rising 
from  the  autumnal  mist,  belong  to  the  closing  years  of  Rubens's 
life.     He  died  at  Antwerp  on  May  20,  1640. 


ANTHONY   VAN   DYCK 

Born  at  Antwerp  in  1599,  Anthony  van  Dyck  (1599-1641), 
after  having  worked  a  few  years  under  Hendrick  van  Balen,  entered 
Rubens's  studio  in  1615,  and  soon  became  so  conversant  with  the 
method  of  his  famous  master,  that  he  was  at  an  early  age  en- 
trusted with  the  execution  of  important  designs.  Before  he  had 
reached  his  twentieth  year  he  was  a  member  of  the  Guild  of 
St.  Luke,  and  had  acquired  a  reputation  second  only  to  that 
of  Rubens  himself  The  Portraits  of  Jean  Orusset  Richardot, 
President  of  the  Netherlands  Council,  and  his  Son  (No.  1985), 
which  was  bought  in  1784  for  16,001  livres,  so  closely  resembles 
the  work  of  Rubens,  especially  in  the  brilliant  flesh-painting, 
that  the  picture  —  a  posthumous  portrait,  by  the  way  —  for  a 
long  time  passed  under  the  elder  master's  name,  although  it 
is  now  admitted  by  the  best  authorities  to  be  an  early  picture 
by  Van  Dyck. 

Van  Dyck  paid  a  short  visit  to  England  in  1620.  He  went  to 
Italy  in  the  following  year,  studying  the  works  of  the  great  masters, 
and  especially  of  Titian,  and  finally  settling  in  Genoa,  where  he  re- 
mained until  his  return  to  Antwerp  in  1628.  During  these  years 
he  devoted  himself  almost  exclusively  to  portraiture,  in  which  he 
endeavoured  successfully  to  emulate  the  golden  warmth  of  colour 
which  had  drawn  him  towards  Titian.  Unfortunately  this,  to  some 
the  most  attractive,  phase  of  Van  Dyck's  art  is  but  indifferently 
shown  at  the  Louvre,  the  only  example  being  a  Portrait  of  a  Man 
<No.  1976). 


PLATE  XXII.— SIR   PETER   PAUL  RUBENS 
(1577-1640) 

FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

Ko.  2113.— PORTRAIT  OF  H^LENE   FOURMENT,   THE  ARTIST'S  SECOND   WIFE, 
AND   TWO  OF  HER  CHILDREN 

(Portrait  d'  H61ene  Fourment,  seconde  femme  de  Rubens,  et  de  ses  enfants) 

The  artist's  second  wife,  wearing  a  felt  liat  trimmed  with  feathers,  is  seated  in  an  arm-chair,  and  turned 
three-quarters  to  the  left;  on  her  lap  is  lier  little  son,  Francois;  on  the  left  her  daughter,  Claire- Jeanne, 
dressed  in  brown,  plays  with  her  white  pinafore. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel.    The  picture  is  unfinished. 

5  ft.  8|  in.  X  2  ft.  8i  in.     (ri3  x  0-82.) 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  147 

VAN    DYCK'S    SECOND    ANTWERP    PERIOD 

Some  of  the  master's  most  precious  works  at  the  Louvre 
belong  to  his  second  Antwerp  period,  which  extended  from  hi» 
return  from  Genoa  in  1628  to  his  departure  for  England  in  1632, 
It  was  probably  then  that  he  painted  The  Virgin  and  Child,  with 
the  Pmitent  Sinners  (No.  1961)  (Mary  Magdalen,  David,  and  the 
Prodigal  Son),  in  which  the  influence  of  the  Venetian  colourists 
is  so  clearly  to  be  noticed.  Indeed,  the  bosom  of  the  female 
penitent  is  copied  from  the  nymph  in  Titian's  Education  of  Cupid 
at  the  Borghese  Gallery,  of  which  there  is  a  drawing  in  the 
Chatsworth  Sketch-book  with  the  comment  in  the  artist's  hand- 
writing, "quel  admirabil  petto."  Shortly  after  his  return  from 
Italy  he  also  painted  The  Virgin  and  Child  with  Donors  (No,  1962)^ 
one  of  his  greatest  masterpieces.  The  Madonna  is  of  a  youthful,  pure 
type,  vastly  different  from  the  buxom  Flemish  women  so  often 
depicted  by  his  master  in  saintly  characters.  The  painting  of  the 
Infant's  body  is  as  admirable  as  that  of  the  kneeling  Donors,  and 
a  spiritual  connection  is  established  by  the  action  of  the  Child 
and  the  expression  of  the  man  towards  whom  He  is  holding  out 
His  hand. 

The  companion  groups  A  Gentleman  and  a  Child  (No.  1973) 
and  A  Lady  and  her  Daughter  (No.  1974),  date  from  about  1630. 
They  are  full  of  that  aristocratic  distinction  which  is  the  hall- 
mark of  Van  Dyck's  Genoese  portraits,  and  which  in  his  later 
English  period  was  apt  to  degenerate  into  effeminacy.  This  air 
of  distinction  is  also  to  be  noted  in  the  children,  although  they 
are  perfectly  natural  in  action  and  expression,  and  have  none  of 
that  stiffness  which  makes  so  many  of  the  earlier  masters'  portraits 
of  children  look  like  undergrown  men  and  women.  The  imposing 
equestrian  portrait  of  Francisco  d'Aytona,  Marques  de  Moncada  (No. 
1971),  Generalissimus  of  the  Spanish  troops  in  the  Netherlands, 


148  THE  LOUVRE 

which  in  its  general  disposition  recalls  the  portrait  of  Charles  i. 
at  Windsor  Castle ;  the  small  study  for  it  of  the  same  sitter's 
head  and  shoulders  (No.  1972) ;  and  the  portrait  of  The  Infanta 
Isabella  Clara  Eugenia,  Regeni  of  the  Netherlands  (No.  1970),  in  the 
costume  of  the  Sisters  of  St.  Clare,  whom  she  had  joined  after  the 
death  of  her  husband  the  Archduke  Albrecht,  belong  to  the  same 
period.  Then  also  was  painted  the  Rinaldo  in  th£  Garden  of  Armida 
(No.  1966),  which  is  probably  the  picture  bought  from  the  artist  at 
Antwerp  by  Endymion  Porter,  on  behalf  of  King  Charles  l,  in 
March  1629,  for  the  price  of  £78. 

«LE    ROI    A    LA    CHASSE" 

Van  Dyck's  manner  of  life  in  England,  as  the  petted  Court 
painter  of  Charles  i.,  and  the  factory-like  output  of  his  well- 
organised  studio  at  Blackfriars,  are  too  well  known  to  need 
further  comment.  In  justice  to  his  fair  fame  it  is  necessary  to  draw 
a  clear  distinction  between  the  innumerable  replicas  turned  out  by 
his  assistants  under  his  guidance,  and  such  magnificent  original 
works  from  the  master's  own  brush  as  the  glorious  Portrait  of  King 
Charles  I.  of  England  (No.  1967,  Plate  XXIII.),  known  as  "Ze  R&i  a 
la  Chasse,"  which  is  one  of  the  proudest  possessions  of  the  French 
national  collection.  The  king  is  seen,  resting  his  gloved  hand  on  a 
stick,  in  a  glade,  with  the  sea  in  the  distance.  Behind  him  are  two 
attendants  and  his  white  charger  pawing  the  ground  in  impatient 
action.  The  king's  noble,  quiet  dignity  is  such  as  to  dominate 
the  entire  composition,  without,  however,  the  slightest  hint  of  the 
theatrical.  Here,  as  in  most  of  his  English  portraits.  Van  Dyck 
has  departed  from  the  glowing  sumptuousness  of  his  earlier 
Venetian  palette,  and  arrived  at  a  cooler,  mellow,  and  more 
personal  harmony  of  decorative  colour.  As  if  conscious  of  the 
superior  merit  of  this  picture,  which  is  more  than  a  mere  portrait 


PLATE   XXIII.— Sm  ANTHONY    VAN   DYCK 
(1599-1641) 

FLEMISH  SCHOOL 

No.  1967.— PORTRAIT   OF  KING  CHARLES  I.   OF   ENGLAND 

(Portrait  ile  Charles  l™,  roi  d'Angleterre  (1600-1649)) 

The  King,  wearing  a  wliite  satin  coat,  red  riding-breeches,  boots,  spurs,  and  a  large  felt  hat,  stands 
proudly  forward  towards  the  left  of  the  composition  ;  his  right  hand  rests  on  his  stick,  his  left  is  placed  on 
his  hip.  The  Marquess  of  Hamilton,  in  attendance  on  the  King,  grasps  the  bridle  of  the  charger;  in  the 
landscape  background  is  a  page. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

Signed  on  a  stone  in  the  right  foreground  : — 

"OAROLUS   I    REX    MAON.K    BRITANMiE. 
VAN    DUCK  F." 

8  ft.  llj  in.  X  7  ft.      (2-72  x  2-12.) 


i 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  149 

of  the  king,  and  depicts  the  very  personification  of  royalty,  the 
artist,  who  was  not  in  the  habit  of  signing  his  pictures,  inscribed 
on  a  stone  the  lettering 

CAROLUS    I    REX    MAGN^    BRITANNI^E  •  VAN    DUCK    F. 

Painted  for  the  king  in  1635  for  £100,  it  passed  through  many 
hands  before  it  was  bought  by  Louis  xv.  for  Mme  du  Barry,  by 
whom  it  was  ceded  in  1775  to  his  successor  for  24,000  livres. 

To  Van  Dyck's  English  period,  which  only  terminated  with  his 
death  in  1641,  belong  the  group  of  Charles  Louis,  Elector  Palatine, 
and  Rupert,  Prince  of  Bavaria  (No.  1969),  and  the  Portrait  of  James 
Stuart,  Duke  of  Lennox  (No.  1975) — not  the  Duke  of  Richmond,  as 
stated  in  the  ofl&cial  Catalogue — in  the  character  of  Paris.  Another 
twelve  pictures  are  catalogued  under  Van  Dyck's  name,  but  they 
are  either  of  minor  importance,  or,  like  the  Three  Children  of 
Charles  I.  (No.  1968),  mere  studio  repetitions. 


FRANS    SNYDERS 

The  powerful  personality  of  Rubens  dominated  the  art  of 
Flanders  during  the  seventeenth  century.  His  direct  or  indirect 
influence  is  traceable  in  the  art  of  most  of  his  contemporaries 
and  of  the  painters  of  the  next  generation,  who  divided  his  artistic 
heritage  without  attaining  to  his  universality.  Thus  his  col- 
laborator Frans  Snyders  (1579-1657),  after  studying  under  "Hell 
Brueghel"  and  H.  van  Balen,  acquired  the  bravura  of  his  brush- 
work  and  his  unrivalled  skill  in  depicting  animals  in  violent 
movement  from  Rubens,  in  whose  pictures  of  the  chase  he  fre- 
quently painted  the  animals,  whilst  he  often  had  to  seek  the 
assistance  of  other  painters  for  the  figures  introduced  into  his  own 
compositions.  Among  the  thirteen  pictures  from  his  brush  at  the 
Louvre  (Nos.   2141-2153)  the   WiU  Boar  Hunt  (No.  2144)  serves 


150  THE  LOUVRE 

best  to  illustrate  Snyders's  power  to  suggest  the  furious  onrush 
and  wild  excitement  of  the  chase.  His  skill  as  a  still-life  painter 
may  be  judged  from  the  masterly  treatment  of  the  wet  glittering 
fish  in  the  large  Fish  Merchants  (No.  2145). 


JACOB    JORDAENS 

Whatever  appears  coarse  in  the  art  of  Rubens  is  accentuated 
to  the  point  of  grossness  in  the  paintings  by  his  fellow-student 
under  Van  Noort,  Jacob  Jordaens  (1593-1678).  He  is  the  painter 
oi  Le  Bm  boit  (No.  2014)  or  The  Twelfth  Night  Feast,  which  is 
by  no  means  the  best  of  his  many  versions  of  his  favourite 
subject.  He  was  a  realist  who,  as  may  be  seen  from  this 
picture  and  from  the  Concert  after  a  Ileal  (No.  2015),  found 
his  most  congenial  subjects  in  the  carousals  of  Flemish  merry- 
makers, which  he  depicted  with  more  than  a  touch  of  coarse 
humour.  That  his  temperament  and  limitations  debarred  him 
from  achieving  success  in  the  higher  flights  of  art  is  clearly 
shown  by  his  large  but  by  no  means  noble  canvas  Christ 
driving  the  Moneylenders  from  the  Temple  (No.  2011).  On  the 
other  hand,  his  firm  grasp  of  character  stood  him  in  good 
stead  in  portraiture.  The  so-called  Portrait  of  Admiral  de  Ruyter 
(No.  2016),  which  was  bought  in  1824  for  £800,  is  a  good 
example. 

We  can  only  briefly  refer  to  a  number  of  seventeenth-century 
Antwerp  painters,  who  were  either  pupils  of  Rubens  or  close 
followers  of  his  tradition.  Gonzales  Coques  (1614-1684),  the 
painter  of  the  admirably  lighted  Family  Party  (No.  1952),  was 
essentially  a  portrait  painter  who  became  known  as  "the  little 
Van  Dyck,"  although  his  manner  had  more  in  common  with  that 
of  the  Dutch  "small  masters"  than  with  the  tempered  elegance 
of  Charles  l's  Court-painter. 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  151 

FOLLOWERS    OF    RUBENS 

Gaspar  de  Grayer  (1584-1669),  a  pupil  of  Raphael  van  Coxie, 
modelled  his  art  entirely  on  Rubens,  and  was  equally  successful  as 
a  portrait  painter  and  in  his  religious  compositions.  Both  phases  of 
his  art  figure  in  the  Louvre  collection,  which  owns  the  St.  Augustin 
in  Ecstasy  (No.  1953)  and  the  life-size  Equestrian  Portrait  of  the 
Infante  Ferdinand,  Governor  of  the  Netherlands  (No.  1954),  It  was 
a  portrait  of  the  same  sitter  that  led  to  Crayer's  appointment  to 
the  position  of  Painter  to  the  Infante's  Gourt,  accompanied  by 
considerable  emoluments. 

Abraham  van  Diepenbeeck  (1596-1675),  Pieter  van  Mol  (1599- 
1650),  and  Paul  de  Vos  (1593-1676)  need  not  here  detain  us. 
They  are  all  capable  followers  of  their  master's  style,  without 
any  personal  distinction.  David  Ryckaert  (1612-1661),  the  third 
of  four  artists  of  the  same  family  that  bore  this  name,  is  outside 
the  immediate  circle  of  Rubens.  His  Interior  of  a  Studio  (No. 
2137),  which  bears  the  signature  "d.  ryc.  f.  1638,"  is  of  peculiar 
interest  as  a  document  illustrating  the  milieu  in  which  a  Flemish 
artist  of  that  period  lived  and  worked. 

Gerard  Seghers  (1591-1651),  the  painter  oi  St.  Francis  in  Ecstasy 
(No.  2140),  although  a  pupil  of  Van  Balen  and  Abraham  Janssens,  and 
indirectly,  through  Manfredi,  of  Caravaggio,  must  be  counted  among 
those  who  were  influenced  by  the  dominating  personality  of  Rubens. 
An  important  pupil  of  Snyders  was  Jan  Fyt  (1611-1661),  who 
excelled  as  an  animal  painter  and  colourist.  He  was  at  his  best 
when  he  treated  animals  more  in  the  manner  of  still  life,  but 
remained  vastly  inferior  to  his  master  when  he  tried  to  emulate 
his  hunting  scenes.  Not  all  the  five  pictures  catalogued  under 
his  name  can  be  accepted  as  his  own  work.  His  great  skill  in 
rendering  the  varied  textures  of  furs  and  feathers  may  be  judged 
from    Game    in   a   Larder    (No.    1993),    which    is    unquestionably 


152  THE  LOUVRE 

authentic  although  it  does  not  bear  the  signature  which  testifies 
to  his  authorship  of  A  Bog  devouring  Game  (No.  1994). 


ADRIAEN    BROUWER 

Both  the  Flemish  school  and  the  Dutch  have  an  equal  right  to 
claim  Adriaen  Brouwer  (1605  or  6-1638),  who,  born  at  Oudenarde, 
carried  on  the  tradition  of  Bouts  and  the  elder  Brueghel.  While 
still  young,  he  was  at  Haarlem  powerfully  impressed  by  the 
art  of  Frans  Hals,  although  it  is  extremely  doubtful  that  he 
ever  actually  worked  in  his  studio.  Finally,  having  settled  at 
Antwerp  in  1631,  he  benefited  by  the  example  of  Rubens.  The 
/Smoker  (No.  1916),  in  spite  of  the  doubts  that  have  been  cast 
upon  it,  is  a  characteristic  work  of  his  at  the  time  when,  inspired 
by  Frans  Hals,  he  adopted  a  full  impasto  instead  of  his  earlier 
glazes.  It  is  signed  with  his  initials  "ab"  in  the  bottom  corner 
on  the  right.  The  handling  is  far  coarser  than  that  of  the  later 
Ifderior  of  a  Tavern  (No.  1912),  which  is  quite  Rembrandtesque 
in  the  rendering  of  light  and  chiaroscuro.  His  inclination  towards 
grimacing  expression  often  made  him  depict  such  scenes  as  The 
Operation  (No.  1915),  in  which  the  patient's  face  is  contorted  with 
pain,  while  the  surgeon  is  bandaging  his  left  shoulder. 

Brouwer  was  the  master  of  Joos  van  Craesbeeck  (1606-1654?), 
who  not  only  closely  followed  his  teaching,  but  actually  painted 
many  replicas  of  Brouwer's  pictures  which  still  pass  under  the 
better  known  artist's  name.  The  Artist  painting  a  Portrait 
(No.  1952d)  was  supposed  to  represent,  and  to  be  from  the  brush 
of,  Brouwer,  when  the  picture  was  bought  for  the  Louvre.  But  on 
technical  grounds  it  must  be  given  to  Craesbeeck — quite  apart 
from  the  extreme  improbability  that  the  dissolute  Brouwer,  who 
spent  most  of  his  time  in  low  taverns,  should  have  lived  in  the 
elegant,   not   to   say  luxurious,   surroundings    here   depicted,   and 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH   SCHOOL  153 

died  young.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  painter  seated 
before  his  easel,  to  whom  a  man-servant  is  offering  a  glass  of 
wine,  is  Joos  van  Craesbeeck. 


DAVID    TENIERS 

There  is  at  the  Louvre  no  picture  by  the  elder  David  Teniers 
(1582-1649),  who  therefore  only  interests  us  here  as  the  father 
and  first  master  of  the  much  greater  artist  David  Teniers  the 
Younger  (1610-1690),  who  completed  his  artistic  education  under 
Rubens,  without,  however,  abdicating  his  own  personality.  Indeed, 
those  of  his  pictures  which  reflect  the  manner  of  Rubens  too 
closely  are  of  little  account  in  the  achievement  of  the  younger 
Teniers,  who  only  begins  to  be  himself  when  he  devotes  his 
prolific  brush  to  the  social  life  of  his  contemporaries,  and  especially 
of  the  lower  classes.  His  pictures  constitute  the  most  realistic  and 
convincing  record  of  the  tastes,  manners,  and  amusements  of  his 
time.  His  types  are  full  of  character,  but  without  the  exaggera- 
tions so  often  found  in  Brueghel  and  Brouwer.  What  he  retained 
of  Rubens,  even  in  his  Village  Fetes,  Tavern  Scenes,  Dances,  and 
Carousals  is  the  application  of  the  great  master's  principles  of 
light  and  harmonious  colour.  But  apart  from  this,  he  rejected  the 
"grand  style"  and  the  conscious  search  for  beauty.  The  ugliness 
of  his  types  and  gestures  led  Louis  xiv.  to  exclaim  in  front  of  his 
pictures,  "  Otez-moi  ces  magots-la  I " 

Few  painters  are  as  exhaustively  represented  at  the  Louvre 
as  the  younger  Teniers.  The  Catalogue  includes  no  fewer  than 
thirty-nine  entries  under  his  name,  two  of  which,  in  the  La  Caze 
collection  (Nos.  2189  and  2190),  are  copies  after  pictures  by  Lotto 
and  Titian  respectively  in  the  collection  of  the  Archduke  Leopold 
William,  Governor  of  the  Netherlands,  to  whom  Teniers  was  ap- 
pointed Court  painter.     It  would  serve  no  purpose  here  to  enumerate 

20 


154  THE  LOUVRE 

the  long  list  of  Kermesse,  Village  Fete,  and  Alehouse  Scenes  in  the 
French  national  collection.  Among  his  most  deservedly  famous 
masterpieces  is  The  Return  of  the  Prodigal  Son  (No.  2156),  which 
belongs  to  a  series  of  which  another  scene  is  to  be  seen  at  the 
Dulwich  Gallery.  The  subject  is  really  only  a  thinly  veiled  excuse  for 
the  painting  of  a  genre  piece  of  the  contemporary  life  of  the  better 
classes  of  his  country.  The  scene  of  the  feast  is  laid  outside  a 
country  inn  that  figures  in  many  of  Teniers's  pictures.  Fully  signed, 
and  dated  1644,  the  picture  belongs  to  the  beginning  of  Teniers's 
very  best  period.  In  The  Temptation  of  St.  Anthony  (No..  2158)  he 
rivals  Bosch  in  the  invention  of  grotesquely  fantastic  monsters. 
Among  other  important  works  by  the  master  in  the  Louvre  must 
be  mentioned  The  Denial  of  St.  Peter  (No.  2155),  a  painting  of 
exquisite  silvery  quality,  signed  and  dated 

DAVID    TENIERS,    f.    AN.    1646  ; 

The  Works  of  3fercy  (No.  2157) ;  the  Village  Fete  (No.  2159) ;  and 
the  Peasants  dancing  hy  an  Inn  Door  (No.  2161),  which  was  stolen 
from  the  collection  in  1815  and  returned  in  the  following  year 
with  a  letter  explaining  that  it  had  been  removed  by  a  French- 
man who  feared  that  it  might  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Allied 
Forces. 

By  Teniers's  pupil,  Fran9ois  Duchatel  (1616  ?-l  694?)  is  the 
excellent  Portrait  of  a  G&ntleman  (No.  1960).  Duchatel  is  a  very 
rare  master,  whose  style  in  portraiture  so  closely  resembles  that 
of  Gonzales  Coques  that  his  pictures  have  been  at  times  ascribed 
to  that  painter.  Jacob  van  Artois  (1613-1684?),  the  painter  of 
the  Landscape  (No.  1901)  in  the  La  Gaze  room,  was  one  of  the 
leading  Flemish  landscape  painters  of  his  time,  and  frequently 
collaborated  with  Teniers,  who  added  the  figures  to  some  of  his 
landscapes.  He  was  the  master  of  Cornelis  Huysmans  (1648-1727), 
who  frequently  assisted  the  battle  painter,  Van  der  Meulen,  and 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  155 

is  here  represented  by  eight  pictures  (Nos.  2002-2009).  Among 
the  landscape  painters  of  that  period  must  also  be  mentioned 
Jan  Siberechts  (1627-1703),  who  spent  the  closing  years  of  his  life 
in  England,  but  does  not  seem  to  have  had  much  influence  on  the 
evolution  of  the  English  landscape  school.  By  him  is  the  Rustic 
Scene  (No.  2140a). 


PHILIPPE    DE    CHAMPAIGNE 

Both  Philippe  de  Champaigne  (1602-1674)  and  Adam  Frans 
van  der  Meulen  (1634^1690),  though  born  at  Brussels,  resided 
in  France  the  best  part  of  their  life,  and  are  therefore  generally 
classed  with  the  painters  of  the  French  school,  which  accounts  for 
their  being  represented  at  the  Louvre  in  a  manner  which  is  quite 
out  of  proportion  to  their  artistic  significance.  Still,  if  Philippe 
de  Champaigne  appears  second-rate  when  compared  with  Rubens 
and  Van  Dyck,  he  is  unquestionably  the  leading  portrait  painter 
of  the  contemporary  French  school  in  which  he  received  his  training. 
His  powers  were  insufficient  for  the  higher  flights  of  imagination, 
and  when  his  ambition  led  him  to  such  compositions  as  Christ  in 
the  House  of  Simon  (No.  1927)  or  Christ  celebrating  Easter  with  His 
Disciples  (No.  1928),  he  was  as  dull  and  bombastic  as  most  of  his 
French  contemporaries,  whom  he  far  excelled  as  a  colourist.  His 
portraits,  on  the  other  hand,  are  painted  in  a  broad,  honest,  straight- 
forward manner  which  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  monotonous 
pompousness  of  his  age,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  admirable  group 
of  two  nuns  in  prayer.  Mother  Catherine  Agnes  Arnaud  and  Sister 
Catherine  de  Sainte-Suzanne  (No.  1934).  The  younger  of  the  two  nuns 
represents  the  artist's  daughter,  who  was  healed  from  paralysis  by  a 
miracle  recorded  by  a  Latin  inscription  on  the  wall.  The  twenty 
pictures  from  Philippe  de  Champaigne's  brush,  which  are  actually 
on  view,  also  include  the  fine  group  of  the  two  architects  Franqois 


156  THE  LOUVRE 

Mansard  and  Cflaiide  Perrault  (No.  1944),  bought  in  1835  for  the  low 
price  of  £80  ;  The  Provost  and  Aldermen  of  Paris  (No.  1945) ;  and  the 
signed  and  dated  portrait  of  Mobert  Arnaud  d'Andilly  (No.  1939). 


VAN    DER    MEULEN 

Van  der  Meulen,  a  native  of  Brussels  and  pupil  of  Snayers, 
was  the  historiographer  of  Louis  xiv.'s  campaigns  and  victories. 
He  was  invited  by  Colbert  to  come  to  Paris,  and  was  first  employed 
to  furnish  designs  for  the  Gobelins  manufactory.  Afterwards  he 
accompanied  Louis  xiv.  on  his  warlike  expeditions,  which  he  im- 
mortalised in  numerous  large  paintings,  most  of  which  are  now  at 
the  Louvre  and  in  the  Chateau  at  Versailles.  His  paintings  are 
of  considerable  topographical  interest,  as  they  give  accurate  repre- 
sentations of  the  aspect  of  famous  towns  and  fortresses  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  as  in  the  Entry  of  Louis  XIV.  and  Marie- 
Therese  into  Arras  (No.  2035),  a  similar  scene  at  Douai  (No.  2033), 
and  the  Arrival  of  the  King  in  the  Camp  before  Maastricht  (No. 
2040).  It  was  Van  der  Meulen  who  founded  the  "tactical 
school"  of  battle  painting,  which  substituted  the  orderly  move- 
ment of  masses  for  the  wild  m^lee  of  the  hand-to-hand  combat. 
Whole  armies  are  seen  advancing  or  retreating  in  long  lines  from 
a  high  vantage-ground  which  is  generally  occupied  by  the  con- 
siderably larger  figures  of  the  army-leaders  on  rearing  and  caracoling 
horses,  and  looking  for  all  the  world  like  '■'■gens  de  qualite  qui 
joueraient  aux  echecs  avec  des  soldats  de  plomh."  The  official  Catalogue 
mentions  no  fewer  than  twenty  pictures  by  Van  der  Meulen. 

MINOR    FLEMISH    PAINTERS 

With  the  exception  of  Justus  Sustermans  (1597-1681),  who 
was  Van  Dyck's  fellow-student  under  H.  van  Balen  and  afterwards 


THE  LATE  FLEMISH  SCHOOL  157 

rose  to  great  fame  as  Court  painter  to  Grand-Duke  Cosimo  ii.  of 
Tuscany  (whose  kinsman  Leopold  de'  Medici  is  portrayed  in  No.  2154), 
and  Pieter  Neefs  (1577  ?-1661  ?),  whose  Church  Interiors  (Nos.  2059- 
2064)  are  remarkable  for  the  faultless  accuracy  and  precision  of 
his  architectural  drawing,  there  are  no  other  painters  of  the 
Flemish  school  whose  works  at  the  Louvre  require  close  attention. 
We  must  content  ourselves  with  the  mere  mention  of  the 
landscape  painters  Jan  Frans  van  Bloemen,  called  Orizonte,  a 
follower  of  Poussin  and  Claude ;  Jan  van  Breda,  Francisque  Millet, 
and  Mathys  Schoevaerts  ;  Carl  van  Falens  and  Anton  Grief,  painters 
of  hunting  scenes ;  Jan  Miel,  who  worked  most  of  his  life  in  Italy 
and  was  completely  influenced  by  the  masters  of  that  country  ;  the 
still-life  painter  Gaspard  Pieter  Verbruggen ;  the  battle  painter 
Sebastiaen  Francken ;  and  the  prolific  painter  of  large  altarpieces, 
Jacob  van  Oost  the  Elder.  With  Balthasar  Paul  Ommeganck 
(1755-1826)  and  the  still-life  painter  Jan  Frans  van  Dael  (1764-1840) 
we  reach  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  a  period  of 
absolute  stagnation  in  Flemish  art  which  preceded  the  brilliant 
revival  of  the  modern  Belgian  school. 


1 


THE  GERMAN  SCHOOL 

OF  all  the  important  European  schools  of  painting,  the  Early 
German  school  is  the  one  of  which  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  gain  anything  like  an  adequate  idea  from  the  pictures 
that  have  found  their  way  into  the  Galleries  of  foreign  countries. 
The  fact  is  that  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three  leading  masters, 
like  Holbein  and  Diirer,  the  Early  Germans  found  but  scant  favour 
beyond  the  confines  of  their  own  country  until  comparatively 
recent  years  —  that  is  to  say,  until  the  majority  of  important 
examples  had  been  systematically  gathered  in  by  the  museums 
of  Germany.  Now  that  the  importance  of  the  German  primitives 
and  Early  Renaissance  painters  has  been  generally  recognised, 
it  will  be  practically  impossible  to  regain  the  lost  ground 
and  to  fill  up  the  serious  gaps  which  prevent  our  forming  an 
adequate  idea  of  the  evolution  of  German  art  in  the  museums  of 
other  countries.  The  Louvre  is  no  exception  to  this  rule.  The 
numerical  weakness  of  the  German  section  is  unfortunately  not 
atoned  for  by  the  importance  of  the  examples  included,  which, 
with  but  few  exceptions,  are  of  little  artistic  account. 

Under  the  circumstances  it  would  be  useless  to  attempt  a  con- 
secutive narrative  of  the  evolution  of  German  art  as  illustrated  by 
the  pictures  at  the  Louvre,  and  we  must  confine  ourselves  to  a 
brief  discussion  of  the  few  noteworthy  works  in  the  collection. 

"THE   MASTER  OF  THE   BARTHOLOMEW  ALTAR" 

The  first  picture  of  importance  belongs  to  the  period  when 
the  idealism  of  the  Early  Gothic  primitives  was  already  replaced 

159 


160  THE  LOUVRE 

by  a  strong  naturalism,  and  the  creation  of  types  by  that  of  clearly 
characterised  individualities.  This  picture,  the  Descent  from  the 
Cross  (No.  2737),  by  the  unknown  "  Master  of  the  Bartholomew 
Altar,"  is  so  called,  in  accordance  with  German  custom,  from  his 
best  known  work,  the  great  altarpiece  in  the  Pinakothek  at  Munich. 
In  the  large  Louvre  picture,  which  bears  a  close  resemblance  to 
the  precious  little  panel  by  the  same  master  in  the  possession 
of  the  Hon.  Edward  Wood,  at  Temple  Newsam,  the  Saviour  is 
being  lowered  from  the  Cross  by  Nicodemus  into  the  hands  of 
one  of  the  Holy  Women  on  the  left,  and  of  Joseph  of  Arimathsea 
on  the  right.  The  group  is  completed  by  St.  John  supporting 
the  Virgin  on  the  extreme  left,  the  Magdalen  and  another  Holy 
Woman  on  the  right,  and  a  Disciple  seated  on  a  ladder  above 
the  central  group.  The  figures  are  shown,  as  in  the  Temple 
Newsam  painting  of  the  same  subject,  against  a  gold  background 
framed  with  rich  Gothic  tracery.  This  altarpiece  is  believed  to 
be  the  last  picture  by  this  Cologne  master,  who  flourished  between 
1490  and  1515,  and  was  in  his  later  manner  influenced  by  Rogier 
van  der  Weyden  and  other  Flemish  masters.  This  eminently 
important  Early  German  picture  was  painted  for  a  Jesuit  establish- 
ment in  the  rue  St.  Antoine,  Paris,  which  accounts  for  its  presence 
in  the  French  national  collection. 


COLOGNE   PAINTERS 

The  "  Master  of  the  Death  of  Mary,"  to  whose  school  belongs 
the  Descent  from,  the  Cross,  with  a  predella  representing  The 
Last  Supper,  and  a  lunette  with  St.  Francis  receiving  the  Stigmata 
(No.  2738),  has  been  identified  by  Wauters  and  Aldenhoven  with  the 
early-sixteenth-century  Flemish  painter  Joos  van  Cleef  the  Elder, 
and  belongs  to  the  Antwerp  rather  than  the  Cologne  school.  The 
"Master  of  St.  Severin,"  to  whom  the  official  Catalogue  ascribes 


THE  GERMAN  SCHOOL  161 

the  two  Scenes  from  the  Life  of  St.  Ursula  (Nos.  2738c  and  2738d), 
was  probably  a  Flemish  painter  who  worked  at  Cologne  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.  But  the  two  panels  at  the 
Louvre,  which  were  formerly  at  the  Cluny  Museum,  are  not  from 
his  brush.  They  are  the  work  of  his  pupil,  the  "Master  of  the 
Ursula  Legend,"  and  belong  to  a  series  of  which  other  panels  can  be 
seen  at  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum  and  at  Cologne. 

The  first  definite  name  in  the  annals  of  the  Cologne  school 
is  that  of  Bartolomaus  Bruyn  (c.  1493-1555),  who  was  a  follower  of 
Joos  van  Cleef  but  subsequently  became  completely  imbued  with 
the  Italian  spirit.  His  portraits,  in  which  he  remained  more  faithful 
to  the  tradition  of  his  country,  are  of  greater  significance  than  his 
religious  compositions,  and  closely  resemble  those  by  Joos  van 
Cleef ;  but  the  Portrait  of  a  Man  with  a  White  Cross  on  his  Breast 
(No.  2702)  is  only  a  school  picture  of  indifferent  quality. 

ALBRECHT   DtJRER 

The  flourishing  school  which  had  its  centre  at  Nuremberg  is 
represented  at  the  Louvre  by  the  master  who  marks  its  zenith 
and  who,  if  his  craftsmanship  was  not  always  on  a  level  with 
the  perfection  of  Holbein's,  shares  with  the  Augsburg  master 
the  honour  of  uncontested  leadership  of  all  German  artists. 
Albrecht  Diirer  (1471-1528)  was  born  at  Nuremberg,  of  Hungarian 
descent.  He  studied  his  art  under  Michael  Wohlgemut,  a  very 
able  Nuremberg  painter,  who  was,  however,  led  by  his  popularity 
to  factory-like  production  of  pictures  that  passed  under  his 
name,  although  they  were  largely  executed  by  inferior  pupils. 
Diirer,  who  excelled  equally  as  an  engraver  and  as  a  painter, 
was,  on  the  other  hand,  one  of  the  most  sincere  and  personal 
artists  of  his  time — a  profound  thinker,  a  shrewd  observer,  a 
student  of  life  in  all  its  phases,  an  idealist  who  was  ever  striving 


21 


162  THE  LOUVRE 

for  beautiful  expression,  even  though  the  realistic  tradition  of 
his  country  did  not  allow  him  to  attain  to  the  abstract  ideal 
of  beauty  which  had  been  reached  by  some  of  the  contemporary 
Italians.  Indeed,  Diirer  may  with  justice  be  called  the  Leonardo 
of  the  North.  He  studied  Venetian  art  on  a  visit  to  Venice  in 
1505,  whither  he  had  been  preceded  by  his  fame.  He  also  travelled 
to  the  Netherlands  in  1520,  the  year  in  which  he  painted  the  signed 
and  dated  Head  of  an  Old  Man  (No,  2709),  his  other  picture  at  the 
Louvre  being  the  not  very  masterly  Head  of  a  Child  (No.  2709a). 

DtiRER'S  FOLLOWERS 

Diirer  died  in  1528  from  a  disease  contracted  during  his 
journey  to  the  Netherlands.  Among  his  principal  pupils  were 
Georg  Pencz  (c.  1500-1550),  to  whom  is  without  sufficient  reason 
attributed  the  indifferent  half  figure  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist 
(No.  2730);  and  Hans  Sebald  Beham  (c.  1500-1550),  the  famous 
engraver,  of  whom  the  Louvre  is  fortunate  to  possess  the  only 
known  painting,  a  table  top  divided  by  golden  lances  into  four 
compartments,  each  of  which  contains  a  Subject  from,  the  Story  of 
David  (No.  2701) :  the  Entry  of  Saul  into  Jerusalem ;  David  and 
Bathsheba  (in  which  scene  is  introduced  a  portrait  of  Archbishop 
Albrecht  of  Mayence,  for  whom  the  work  was  executed) ;  the 
Siege  of  Rahhath ;  and  the  Prophet  Nathan  before  David  (with  a 
portrait  of  the  artist  and  the  initials  of  his  name,  "h.  s.  b."). 

LUCAS  CRANACH 

This  same  Archbishop  Albrecht,  whose  features  are  also 
known  to  us  from  two  engravings  by  Diirer  and  a  painting  by 
Griinewald,  was  one  of  the  most  generous  patrons  of  Lucas 
Cranach  the  Elder  (1472-1553),  whose  busy  workshops  at  Witten- 


THE  GERMAN  SCHOOL  163 

berg  supplied  the  whole  north  and  east  of  Germany  with  portraits, 
altarpieces,  historical  and  mythological  pictures.  Lucas  Cranach 
was  a  follower  of  Griinewald,  the  great  head  of  the  Colmar  school. 
Apart  from  his  merit  as  a  colourist  and  an  excellent  draughtsman, 
he  attracts  by  the  naive  grace  of  his  nude  figures  and  by  the 
complete  manner  in  which  he  reflects  the  taste  of  his  time  and 
country.  But  of  the  five  little  pictures  that  figure  in  the  Louvre 
Catalogue  under  his  name,  not  one  is  from  his  own  hand.  Indeed, 
the  Vernis  in  a  Landscape  (No.  2703)  is  the  only  one  that  may 
with  a  degree  of  safety  be  attributed  to  his  son,  Lucas  Cranach 
the  Younger,  who  carried  on  the  management  of  the  studio  some 
years  before  his  father's  death,  and  continued  to  imitate  his 
style  until  his  own  death  in  1586.  The  Venus  bears  the  usual 
Cranach  signature  of  a  winged  serpent  and  the  date  1520.  The 
same  crest,  with  the  date  1532,  figures  on  the  portrait  of  Johann 
Friedrich  III.,  Elector  of  Saxony  (No.  2704),  who  is  known  on  one 
occasion  to  have  given  a  w^holesale  order  of  sixty  replicas  of 
the  same  portrait  to  the  Wittenberg  master.  It  may  be  imagined 
that  a  commission  of  this  nature  would  not  be  executed  by  the 
head  of  the  studio,  but  left  to  his  staff"  of  assistants.  The  Fighting 
Savages  (No.  2702a)  and  the  two  Portraits  (Nos.  2703a  and  2705) 
are,  at  the  best,  studio  works. 


HANS   HOLBEIN 

We  now  come  to  the  second  of  the  two  commanding  figures 
in  German  art,  Hans  Holbein  the  Younger  (1497-1543),  who 
was  born  at  Augsburg  and  studied  under  his  father,  the  elder 
artist  of  the  same  name.  When  he  reached  his  maturity  the 
Italian  influence  had  already  permeated  German  art,  but  he 
was  the  first  Northern  master  who  knew  how  to  benefit  by  the 
real  spirit   of  the  Renaissance  without  imitating  the   letter ;  the 


164  THE  LOUYRE 

first  to  develop  a  noble,  dignified  style,  free  from  the  florid 
trivialities  which  so  many  Northerners  took  from  certain  Italian 
painters.  He  was  above  all  a  marvellous  portrait  painter  who,  in 
his  drawings  as  well  as  in  his  paintings,  combines  the  most  exquisite 
delicacy  and  subtlety  with  rare  strength,  the  greatest  precision 
of  detail  with  freedom  and  breadth  of  handling.  Only  this  phase 
of  his  art  is  represented  at  the  Louvre,  which  certainly  owns 
one  perfect  example  of  Holbein's  portraiture  in  the  Portrait  of 
Erasmus  (No.  2715,  Plate  XXIV.). 

Holbein  had  settled  in  Basle  in  1519.  He  went  to  England 
in  1526,  with  a  letter  of  introduction  from  Erasmus  to  Sir  Thomas 
More.  From  one  of  Erasmus's  letters  it  would  appear  that 
Holbein  had  portrayed  him  at  least  three  times  before  1524 ; 
and  the  picture  now  in  the  Louvre  was  probably  the  one  that 
was  painted  for  Sir  Thomas  More  —  a  better  recommendation 
than  any  letter  of  introduction  !  The  profile  is  drawn  with  in- 
imitable mastery ;  and  the  whole  character  of  the  man  can  be 
read  from  the  expression  of  the  tight-pressed  lips  and  mobile 
features,  as  he  sits  writing  at  his  desk.  Note,  also,  the  marvellous 
expressiveness  of  the  hands,  studies  for  which  are  to  be  found  in 
the  collection  of  drawings  at  the  Louvre. 

In  view  of  the  personal  relations  which  link  together  Holbein, 
Erasmus,  and  Sir  Thomas  More,  it  would  be  pleasant  if  we  could 
accept  the  so-called  Portrait  of  Thomas  More,  Great  Uhancellw  of 
England  (No.  2717),  as  authentic.  It  does  not,  however,  represent 
Holbein's  first  English  patron,  nor  does  it  appear  to  be  from 
the  master's  own  brush. 


THE   KRATZER  PORTRAIT 

Holbein's  first  sojourn  in  England  extended  from  1526  to  1528, 
in  which  year  he  returned  to  Basle.     It  must  have  been  shortly 


PLATE   XXIV.— HANS    HOLBEIN    THE    YOUNGER 

(1497-1543) 
GERMAN   SCHOOL 

No.  27 15. -PORTRAIT  OF   ERASMUS 
(Portrait  de  Didier  Erasme) 

The  Humanist  is  seen  at  half  length  and  in  foretile  to  the  left,  before  a  table  at  which  he  is  writing.     He 
wears  a  fur-lined  coat  and  a  dark  cap.     A  green  figured  curtain  forms  the  background. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

1  ft.  4i  iu.  X  1  ft.  0|  in.     (0-42  x  0-32.) 


THE  GERMAN  SCHOOL  165 

before  his  departure  that  he  painted  the  Poiirait  of  Nicolas  Kratzer, 
Astronomer  to  King  Henry  VIII.  (No.  2713) ;  it  is  an  unquestionably 
authentic  work,  although  it  has  been  so  extensively  repainted  that 
little  is  now  left  of  the  original,  save  the  general  disposition  of 
the  design  and  the  instruments  placed  on  the  table  and  hung  on 
the  wall,  which  are  executed  with  all  the  loving  care  that  Holbein 
was  wont  to  bestow  upon  such  accessories.  Still,  even  in  its  present 
condition,  the  portrait  is  a  thoroughly  convincing  likeness  of  "  a  man 
who  is  brimful  of  wit,  jest,  and  humorous  fancies" — as  Kratzer  is 
referred  to  by  one  of  his  contemporaries.  A  sheet  of  paper  on 
the  left  of  the  table  appears  to  be  inscribed : — 

Imago  ad  vivam  effigiem  expressa 

Nicolai  Kratzeri  mona^ensis  qui  havarus  erat 

Quadragessimum  annum,  tempore  illo  complebat. 

1528. 

Although  decidedly  superior  to  another  version  of  the  same 
picture  at  Lambeth  Palace,  the  Portrait  of  William  Warham, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (No.  2714),  which   bears   the   inscription, 

ANNO.    Dm.    MDXXVII.    ETATIS.    SVE,    LXX., 

cannot  without  hesitation  be  accepted  as  an  original  work.  It 
lacks,  at  any  rate,  the  finesse  of  the  beautiful  drawing  at  Windsor 
Castle,  upon  which  it  is  evidently  based. 

To  the  same  year  belongs  the  Portrait  of  Sir  Richard  Southwell 
(No.  2719),  to  whose  treacherous  accusation  was  due  the  execution 
of  Henry  Howard,  Earl  of  Surrey.  But  this  picture,  again,  is 
only  a  replica,  by  an  inferior  hand,  of  the  magnificent  portrait 
in  the  Ufiizi  Gallery  (No.  7Q5).  An  inscription  in  the  background, 
at  both  sides  of  the  head,  reads : 

on  the  left :  x."  ivlii.  anno.        and  on  the  right :  etatis  sv^e 

H.  VIII.  XXVIII.  ANNO  XXXIII. 


166  THE  LOUVRE 

It  would  thus  appear  that  the  picture  was  painted  in 
1537,  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  Henry  viii.'s  reign.  The 
Portrait  of  a  Man  holding  a  Carnaiion  and  a  Rosary  (No.  2720) 
is  a  picture  of  poor  quality  and  has  no  connection  whatever 
with  Holbein. 


PORTRAIT  OF  ANNE   OF   CLEVES 

Of  far  greater  importance  and  undisputed  authenticity  is 
the  Portrait  of  Anne  of  Cleves,  Fourth  Wife  of  Henry  VIII. 
(No.  2718).  No  credence  is  to  be  attached  to  the  legend  invented 
by  Bishop  Burnet  more  than  a  century  after  that  ill-treated  lady's 
death,  according  to  which  Holbein's  flattering  portrait  was 
instrumental  in  "  bluff  King  Hal's "  choice  of  his  fourth  spouse 
and  responsible  for  the  king's  disappointment  at  setting  eyes  upon 
Anne.  The  picture,  which  was  painted  in  1539,  seven  years  after 
Holbein's  definite  return  to  England  and  to  the  service  of 
Henry  viii.,  has  not  only  that  air  of  inevitable  truthfulness  which 
distinguishes  aU  Holbein's  portraiture,  but  tallies  to  a  remarkable 
degree  with  the  descriptions  sent  to  Henry  viii,  by  his  agents. 
Whilst  not  exactly  unpleasant  to  behold,  the  features  are  those 
of  a  spiritless,  dull  woman — an  impression  which  is  intensified 
by  the  absence  of  life  and  character  in  the  hands,  which  Holbein 
invariably  studied  as  closely  as  the  face.  The  painting  of  the 
richly  embroidered  and  jewelled  costume,  the  stately  symmetry 
of  the  design,  and  the  beautiful  scheme  of  colour  are  really  the 
chief  attractions  of  this  picture. 

The  Adoration  of  the  Magi  (No.  2711a),  which  was  at  one  time 
attributed  to  the  elder,  and  subsequently  to  the  younger,  Holbein, 
is  now  rightly  given  to  the  latter's  contemporary  and  compatriot 
Gumpold  Giltlinger,  an  Augsburg  painter  of  no  particular  dis- 
tinction. 


THE  GERMAN  SCHOOL  X67 

THE   SEVENTEENTH   CENTURY 

Before  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  German  art  had 
entered  upon  a  period  of  complete  decadence.  The  only  painter 
who  claims  attention,  not  so  much  for  the  undeniable  merit  of 
his  very  highly  finished  landscapes,  but  for  the  fact  that  he 
exercised  a  certain  influence  upon  Rembrandt,  is  the  Frankfort 
painter,  Adam  Elsheimer  (1578-1621  ?),  who  worked  at  Rome, 
and  who  is  represented  at  the  Louvre  by  The  Flight  into  Egypt 
(No.  2710)  and  The  Good  Samaritan  (No.  2711). 

For  the  rest,  the  German  painters  of  his  period  and  of  the 
whole  of  the  seventeenth  century  retained  scarcely  a  trace  of 
national  character,  and  were  completely  under  the  sway  of  the 
foreign,  and  particularly  of  the  Italian,  schools.  Thus,  Johann 
Rottenhammer  (1564-1623),  the  painter  of  The  Death  of  Adonis 
(No.  2732)  and  Diana  and  Calisto  (No.  2733),  was  successively 
dominated  by  Jan  Brueghel  and  by  Tintoretto.  The  flower 
painter,  Abraham  Mignon  (1640-1679),  though  born  at  Frank- 
fort, was  a  pupil  of  David  de  Heem  and  a  Dutchman  in 
his  art.  His  pictures  at  the  Louvre  (Nos.  2724-2729)  are 
distributed  between  the  German  and  the  Dutch  sections. 
Philipp  Peter  Roos,  better  known  as  Rosa  da  Tivoli  (1665?- 
1705),  who  painted  the  Wolf  devouring  a  Sheep  (No.  2731), 
lived  in  Rome  and  adopted  the  style  of  the  country  of 
his  domicile.  The  Bear  Hunt  (No.  2734)  is  the  work  of  Carl 
Ruthart,  another  unimportant  Italianising  German  of  the  second 
half  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

THE   EIGHTEENTH   CENTURY 

The  work  of  the  Hamburg  painter,  Baltasar  Denner  (1685-1749), 
has  no  claim  to  be  considered  as  a  manifestation  of  art :  it  is 


laS  THE  LOUVRE 

merely  a  display  of  mechanical  skill  in  the  microscopic  rendering 
of  the  little  lines  and  pores  and  stubbly  hair  on  the  skin  of 
old  people's  faces.  He  lived  for  seven  years  in  London,  where 
he  painted  in  1724  the  signed  Portrait  of  an  Old  Woman  (No.  2706), 
which  was  bought  in  1852  for  £756.  Another  characteristic 
example  of  his  misapplied  skill  is  the  portrait  (No.  2707)  in 
the  La  Gaze  Room. 

Christian  WUhelm  Dietrich  (1712-1774)  and  Heinrich  Wilhelm 
Schweickhardt  (1746-1787)  are  too  insignificant  to  deserve  serious 
consideration.  The  same  remark  applies  to  Christian  Seybold 
(1703  ?-l  768),  who  became  Court  Painter  to  the  Empress  Maria 
Theresa ;  and  to  Johann  Ernest  Heinsius,  who  was  active  as  a 
portrait  painter  in  France  during  the  reign  of  Louis  xvi.  All 
that  is  to  be  noted  in  their  pictures  at  the  Louvre  is  the  total 
absence  of  all  artistic  merit. 

Of  somewhat  greater  importance,  though  by  no  means  of 
the  first  rank,  are  the  two  last  German  artists  who  claim  our 
attention :  Raphael  Mengs  (1728-1779)  and  Angelica  Kaufmann, 
(1741-1807),  who  is  catalogued  among  the  painters  of  the  German 
school,  although  she  was  Swiss  by  birth,  Italian  by  education, 
and  English  by  domicile.  Her  sex  was  no  bar  to  her  becoming 
one  of  the  Foundation  members  of  the  English  Royal  Academy, 
and  she  is  generally  counted  among  the  English  painters.  The 
portrait  group  of  The  Baroness  von  Krildner  and  her  Daughter 
(No.  2722)  is  a  poor  example  of  her  art,  which  invariably  sought 
to  please  by  conventional  prettiness. 

Raphael  Mengs,  the  painter  of  the  portrait  of  Marie  Amelia 
Christina  of  Saxony,  Wife  of  Charles  III.  of  Spain,  was  born  at 
Aussig  in  Bohemia,  studied  whilst  still  a  boy  in  Italy,  and  became 
Court  Painter  to  Charles  iii.,  who  invited  him  to  Madrid  in 
1761.  Mengs  was  an  exceedingly  accomplished  technician  and 
draughtsman,  who   modelled  himself  on   Raphael  and  the  Italian 


THE  GERMAN  SCHOOL  169 

eclectics,  but  was  wholly  lacking  in  originality  and  inspira- 
tion. He  tried  his  hand  in  every  branch  of  his  art,  and 
was  most  successful  in  portraiture,  although  even  his  portraits 
are  lacking  in  penetration  of  character.  He,  however,  excelled 
as  a  copyist,  and  died  in  Rome  in  1779. 


I 


»a 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL 

THOUGH  numerically  by  no  means  imposing,  the  Spanish 
pictures  at  the  Louvre  form  an  exceedingly  interesting 
section  of  the  great  French  national  collection,  comprising, 
as  they  do,  characteristic  examples  of  the  art  of  practically  all 
the  most  prominent  figures  in  the  evolution  of  Spanish  painting. 
Compared  with  the  schools  of  Italy  and  Flanders,  that  of  Spain  was 
tardy  in  its  development  and  very  much  dependent  upon  foreign 
influences.  The  activity  of  Flemish  and  Italian  masters  in  Spain — 
we  need  only  mention  Stamina,  Dello  Delli,  Rubens,  Luca  Giordano 
— and  the  visits  of  several  eminent  Spanish  masters  to  Italy,  could 
not  fail  to  leave  their  clear  mark  on  the  art  of  the  Peninsula,  the 
renaissance  of  which  was  almost  entirely  due  to  the  stimulus  received 
from  abroad.  The  short  visit  of  Jan  van  Eyck  to  Portugal  in  1429 
also  had  a  profound  influence  on  the  art  of  the  Peninsula.  But  the 
local  conditions,  the  strict  rule  of  the  Church  and  the  tyranny  of  the 
Inquisition,  the  stiff  ceremonial  of  the  Court, — the  only  rival  of  the 
Church  in  the  patronage  of  the  arts, — and  especially  the  sombre, 
passionate  character  of  the  Spanish  race, — all  helped  to  transform  the 
imported  styles  into  an  art  of  definite  national  stamp,  an  art  that 
is  marked  by  sombreness,  asceticism,  dramatic  intensity,  and  deep 
religious  feeling.  Throughout  it  is  dominated  by  realistic  tendencies 
and  rude  strength  rather  than  by  the  striving  for  grace  and  beauty 
and  rhythm  which  characterise  Italian  art. 

LUIS   DE   DALMAU 

The    Louvre    is    fortunate    in    possessing    an    authentic    and 

extremely  important,  though  badly  restored,  altarpiece  by  Ludovico 

171 


172  THE  LOUVRE 

Luis  de  Dalmau,  the  first  Spanish  painter  whose  personality  emerges 
definitely  from  the  obscurity  of  the  Gothic  period  in  Spain.  Dalmau 
was  a  Catalan  who  flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  and  who,  although  not  a  direct  pupil  of  the  Van  Eycks, 
shows  such  close  affinity  with  their  style  that  certain  modern  critics 
are  inclined  to  ascribe  to  him,  with  insufficient  reason,  certain 
pictures,  like  the  Fountain  of  Living  Water  at  the  Prado,  by  the 
heads  and  founders  of  the  Bruges  school.  In  spite  of  the  different 
types  and  the  increased  angularity  of  the  drapery  folds  in  Dalmau's 
Enthronement  of  St.  Isidore  (No.  1703a),  this  Eyckian  influence  is 
clearly  traceable  in  the  Louvre  picture,  which  shows  the  Virgin 
enthroned  under  a  Gothic  canopy  wearing  a  crown  of  typically 
Spanish  form,  and  handing  the  pallium  to  the  saintly  Bishop  of 
Seville,  who  kneels  on  the  left.  Further  back  on  the  same  side  are 
four  angels  with  the  episcopal  insignia.  The  group  is  balanced  on 
the  right  by  St.  Anthony  the  Hermit  in  the  foreground,  and 
SS.  Catherine,  Margaret,  Agatha,  Odilia,  and  Apollonia  grouped 
around  the  throne.  The  picture  was  originally  in  a  church  at 
Valladolid,  and  was  bought  for  the  Louvre  at  the  Bourgeois 
sale  at  Cologne  in  1904  for  £3025. 


LUIS   MORALES 

We  need  not  here  pay  attention  to  the  few  unimportant 
pictures  by  unknown  early  Spanish  masters  in  the  collection,  and 
may  pass  on  to  Luis  Morales,  called  "  El  Divino  "  ("  The  Divine  ") 
(1509-1586),  who  was  born  at  Badajoz,  and  worked  at  Toledo,  when 
the  whole  Spanish  school  was  already  addicted  to  the  Italian 
mannerisms  introduced  by  Berreguete  and  other  native  artists 
trained  in  Rome.  Morales,  however,  remained  faithful  to  the 
tradition  of  his  own  country,  and  was  essentially  a  painter  of 
those  religious  subjects  which  enabled  him  to  follow  the  national 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  173 

bent  for  the  sombre  and  tragic — the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  of 
the  Virgin,  and  similar  themes.  The  Christ  carrying  the  Cross 
(No.  1707)  is  a  typicaUnstance  of  the  tragic  intensity  of  his  concep- 
tion. All  the  suff'ering  of  the  Saviour  is  expressed  in  His  drawn 
features  and  His  heavy,  swollen  eyelids.  The  picture  is  not  dated, 
but  was  evidently  painted  before  1564,  in  which  year  the  master  was 
called  to  the  Escorial  and,  while  in  the  service  of  Philip  ii.,  to  a 
great  extent  lost  his  individual  style  in  the  imitation  of  the  Italians, 
that  was  probably  forced  upon  him  by  the  taste  of  his  patrons. 


EL   GRECO 

We  now  come  to  one  of  the  most  interesting  figures  in  the 
history  of  Spanish  painting — Dominico  Theotocopuli,  better  known 
as  "  El  Greco  "  (1548-1614),  from  the  country  of  his  birth.  Born  in 
Crete  about  1548,  El  Greco  entered  at  a  very  early  age  the  studio 
of  Titian  in  Venice.  This  at  least  we  know  from  a  letter  written 
by  Clovio  from  Rome  in  1570,  without  which,  if  we  were  to  judge 
from  the  master's  early  style,  we  should  be  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  he  acquired  his  art  from  Tintoretto,  and  more  particularly  from, 
Jacopo  da  Ponte,  to  whom  several  of  his  earliest  works  in  private 
collections  were  formerly,  and  in  some  cases  are  still,  ascribed.  He 
went  to  Rome  in  1570,  and  after  five  or  six  years  took  up  his  abode 
at  Toledo,  his  first  dated  picture  in  that  city,  the  scene  of  his  chief 
activity,  bearing  the  date  1577.  Between  that  year  and  his  death 
in  1614,  his  extant  works  illustrate  the  gradual  evolution  of  his  art, 
the  change  of  his  Italian  into  a  typically  Spanish  manner,  the 
rapid  acquisition  of  a  very  personal  style,  and  the  straining  of  that 
personal  style  to  extreme  mannerism.  The  notes  and  flashes  of  rare, 
cold,  almost  acid,  but  always  harmonious,  colour  lend  a  peculiar  dis- 
tinction to  El  Greco's  work.  His  predilection  for  long,  narrow  faces 
and  slender,   emaciated  bodies  led  him  in  his  declining  years  to 


174  THE  LOUVRE 

extravagant  exaggeration ;  the  ecstatic  passionate  action  and 
gesture  of  his  figures  reveal  contortion  and  frenzy.  As  a  portrait 
painter  El  Greco  is  second  only  to  Velazqu«z  in  the  school  of  his 
adopted  country.  His  biographer,  Sefior  Cossio,  has  called  him 
"a  painter  of  souls,"  because  he  had  that  intense  power  of 
penetration  which  perceives  and  retains  at  a  glance  the  sum  total 
of  a  person's  traits  of  character. 

El  Greco's  conception  of  portraiture  enters  largely  into  his 
pictures  at  the  Louvre,  from  which  we  must  exclude  as  an  imitation 
by  an  inferior  hand  the  St.  Francis  and  a  Novice  (No.  1729a).  It 
is  certainly  an  important  feature  in  the  large  Christ  on  the  Cross, 
with  Two  Donors,  one  of  the  comparatively  recent  acquisitions,  which 
still  hangs  on  a  screen  in  Gallery  XV.  This  great  altarpiece  has 
little  of  the  master's  fierce  passion  and  lightning  flashes  of  colour. 
The  expression  of  the  two  Donors,  Diego  and  Antonio  Covarrubias, 
who  are  seen  to  the  waist  at  the  foot  of  the  Cross,  does  not  go 
beyond  normal  pious  devotion ;  and  the  Saviour  seems  rather  to 
stand  with  spread  arms  than  to  hang  on  the  Cross  with  all  the 
weight  of  His  characteristically  elongated  body.  A  leaden  grey 
dominates  the  whole  colour  scheme.  The  composition  is  singularly 
empty  and  simple  for  a  master  who  seemed  to  have  a  perfect  horror 
of  empty  spaces.  The  picture,  which  is  fully  signed,  must  have 
been  painted  soon  after  El  Greco's  arrival  at  Toledo  (and  not, 
as  SSr.  Cossio  thinks,  between  1590  and  1600),  since  one  of  the 
Donors,  the  priest  Diego  Covarrubias,  died  in  1577. 

Comparison  of  the  two  Donors'  faces  with  their  portraits  by  the 
same  master  in  the  Toledo  Library  can  leave  no  doubt  as  to  their 
identity.  The  Christ  on  the  Cross  was  offered  by  the  deputy  Isaac 
Pereire  of  Prades  (Pyren^es-Orientales)  to  the  local  parish  church,  but 
was  refused  and  hung  in  the  Palais  de  Justice  at  Prades,  whence  it 
was  removed  to  the  Mairie  in  1904,  and  finally  sold  to  the  Louvre 
in  1908  for  £1000.     The  picture  measures  8  ft.  8  in.  by  5  ft.  8  in. 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  176 

The  St.  Louis  of  France  and  a  Page  (No.  1729b),  which  was 
formerly  wrongly  catalogued  as  Kin^  Ferdinand  the  Catholic,  is  a 
more  typical  example  of  El  Greco's  management  of  colour.  The 
boldly  painted  armour  is  identical  with  that  of  the  St.  Martin  on 
horseback,  at  Toledo.  The  probable  date  of  the  picture,  which 
was  bought  in  1904  at  the  high  price  of  £2800,  is  between  1594 
and  1600. 

By  El  Greco's  favourite  pupil  and  assistant,  Luis  Tristan 
(1586-1640),  is  the  realistic  half-figure  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  (No. 
1730).  A  more  scientific  classification  of  the  works  by  the  Toledo 
painters  has  reversed  Sir  W.  Stirling-Maxwell's  judgment  that 
Tristan  had  all  the  virtues  and  none  of  the  faults  of  his  master. 
He  was  in  reality  a  mediocre  imitator  of  El  Greco,  without  a 
spark  of  his  master's  genius  and  without  any  of  his  distinction. 

THE   SCHOOL   OF   SEVILLE 

The  naturalistic  tendencies  inherent  in  the  national  Spanish 
genius,  which  even  in  the  period  of  Italian  mannerism  were  not 
to  be  entirely  denied,  bore  full  fruit  at  Seville,  where  Francisco 
Herrera  "the  Old"  (1576-1656)  was  the  first  entirely  to  reject  the 
tyranny  of  the  Italian  manner,  and  with  it  to  a  certain  extent  the 
tyranny  of  Church  patronage.  He  was  a  man  of  fiery  character, 
with  whom  the  technique  of  his  art  became  a  veritable  passion.  It 
was  left  to  a  painter  of  a  later  century  and  of  another  race  to  proclaim 
that  it  does  not  matter  what  you  paint,  but  Iiow  you  paint ;  but 
Herrera's  work  at  times  almost  suggests  that  he  was  guided  by 
similar  principles,  although  an  instinctive  sense  of  pictorial  fitness 
saved  him  from  the  consequences  to  which  their  unrestricted 
application  might  easily  lead. 

In  spite  of  the  repelling  fierceness,  the  fanaticism,  the  cruelty  of 
every  single  face — all  of  them  portraits,  no  doubt — in  the  St.  Basil 


176  THE  LOUVRE 

dictating  his  Doctrine  (No.  1706)  at  the  Louvre,  in  spite  of  the 
essentially  Spanish  manner  in  which  the  design  fills  the  space  (the 
figures  being  grouped  in  horizontal  courses  right  across  the  canvas, 
with  very  little  space  above  for  the  sky,  and  this  little  space  filled 
with  angels'  heads  and  with  a  Holy  Ghost  as  fierce  as  the  rest 
of  the  assembly),  there  is  a  noble  rhythm  of  line  as  well  as  of  the 
distribution  of  light  and  shade,  which  proclaims  the  mind  of  a 
master.  The  two  Saints  in  the  immediate  foreground,  St.  Dominic 
and  St.  Bernard,  are  cut  through  at  the  waist — another  favourite 
device  of  Spanish  composition,  which  we  have  already  noticed  in 
the  Donors  of  El  Greco's  Christ  on  the  Cross. 


ZURBARAN 

Considerable  though  it  be,  Herrera's  artistic  achievement  does 
not  constitute  his  chief  claim  to  fame ;  for  his  name  will  ever  be 
best  knewn  as  that  of  the  first  master  of  the  greatest  of  all 
Spanish  painters,  Don  Diego  Rodriguez  de  Silva  y  Velazquez.  But 
before  discussing  the  pictures  by,  or  catalogued  under  the  name  of, 
Velazquez  at  the  Louvre,  we  must  consider  the  work  of  two  other 
painters  of  the  Naturalistic  school :  Francisco  de  Zurbaran  (1598- 
1661)  and  Jose  de  Ribera,  called  "Lo  Spagnoletto"  (1588-1656). 
Zurbaran,  a  pupil  of  the  Sevillan  Juan  de  las  Roelas,  was  essentially 
a  painter  of  church  pictures,  his  favourite  subjects  being  types  of 
monks  and  scenes  of  monkish  life.  There  is  something  so  sincere 
and  convincing  in  his  unrelenting  realism,  that  even  his  pictures  of 
rapturous  ecstasy  and  strongly  emphasised  emotion  impress  one  as 
truthful  renderings  of  types  observed  by  the  artist  in  the  streets 
and  churches  of  monastic  Seville.  The  sombre  passion  with  which 
his  subjects  are  instinct  is  reflected  by  his  colour  and  masterly 
chiaroscuro.  ZurbarAn  became  Court  Painter  to  Philip  iv.  in  or 
before  1633,  in  which  year  he  added  the  words  ^'  Pinior  del  Rey"  to 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  177 

his  signature  on  one  of  his  pictures  ;  and  in  this  capacity  he 
painted  at  Madrid  his  only  known  secular  pictures,  a  series  of  ten 
Scenes  from  the  History  of  Hercules. 

Two  admirable  pictures  from  his  brush  figure  in  the  Louvre 
Catalogue  as  St.  Peter  Nolasque  and  St.  Raymond  de  Penafort 
(No.  1738)  and  The  Funeral  of  a  Bishop  (No.  1739).  As  a  matter  of 
fact  they  represent  two  scenes  from  the  life  of  St.  Bonaventura : 
The  Saint  presiding  at  a  Chapter  of  Minor  Brothers,  and  The  Funeral 
of  St.  Bonaventura.  The  second  of  these  companion  pictures  which 
were  originally  in  a  convent  at  Seville  is  particularly  striking  for 
the  unconventionality  of  its  composition,  the  strong  character  of 
the  heads,  and  the  masterly  treatment  of  the  chiaroscuro.  Note 
again  the  placing  of  the  heads  almost  in  a  horizontal  line  right 
across  the  canvas,  and  the  anxious  avoidance  of  empty  spaces. 
The  third  picture  that  stands  to  Zurbaran's  name  is  the 
figure  of  A  Lady  of  Fashion  in  the  Character  of  St.  Apollonia 
(No.  1740),  a  work  of  not  very  striking  merit. 


RIBERA 

Ribera,  though  born  near  Valencia,  where  he  received  his  early 

education  in  the  painter's  art  in  the  studio  of  Ribalta,  was   still 

young  in  years  when  he  left   his   native  land  for   Italy,  never  to 

return.     Studying  and  working  at  Rome,   Parma,  and   Naples,  he 

was  so  strongly  influenced  by  Caravaggio,  and  to  a  minor  extent 

by  Correggio,  that,  taking  also  into  account  his  long  domicile,  there 

is  some  justification  for  those  who  treat  him  as  belonging  to  the 

Italian  school  of  Naturalists.     The  most  prominent  feature  of  his 

art  is  the  violent  and  abrupt  contrasting  of  brilliant   lights  with 

very   deep  and  heavy   shadows,   which  enforces  the   almost  cruel 

dramatic  intensity  of  his  scenes  of  torture,  convulsions,  and  suffering. 

In  this  use  of  chiaroscuro  he  was  a  true  follower  of  Caravaggio,  but 
23 


178  THE  LOUVRE 

Ribera,  even  where  he  is  most  Italian,  never  denies  his  Spanish 
nationality  and  the  teaching  of  his  first  master. 

Nowhere  are  his  racial  characteristics  more  pronounced  than  in 
the  admirable  character-study,  in  the  La  Gaze  Room,  of  a  grinning 
beggar-boy  who  suffers  from  an  infirmity  from  which  the  picture 
derives  its  popular  name.  The  Cluh-foot  (No.  1725).  The  boy  is 
standing  in  bold  silhouette  against  a  clouded  sky.  He  shoulders 
his  crutch  like  a  gun,  and  carries  in  his  left  hand  a  sheet  of  paper 
with  the  inscription — da  mihi  elemosinam  propter  amorem  del 

If  The  Club-foot  is  scarcely  typical  of  the  qualities  that  are 
generally  associated  with  Ribera's  art,  the  Louvre  owns  two 
thoroughly  characteristic  examples  of  his  more  violent  manner,  of 
his  dramatic  use  of  sharply  contrasted  light  and  shade,  in  The 
Erdombment  (No.  1722)  and  St.  Paul  the  Hermit  (No.  1723),  which 
bears  on  a  stone  the  signature 

JUSEPE    DE    ribera    ESPAGNOL    P.P. 

In  The  Entombment  the  master-hand  is  revealed  by  the  superb  breadth 
with  which  the  limp  yet  weighty  body  of  the  Saviour  is  painted. 
It  is  not  modelled  in  all  its  plastic  roundness,  but  cut  into  sharp 
flat  passages  of  light  and  shadow,  the  plastic  relief  being  suggested 
by  the  perfection  of  the  anatomical  drawing  and  foreshortening. 
Poignant  grief  is  expressed  in  the  faces  of  St.  Joseph  of  Arimathsea, 
the  Virgin  Mary,  St.  John,  and  Nicodemus,  who  surround  the 
body,  the  head  of  which  is  supported  by  St.  Joseph.  The  same 
subject  is  treated  with  less  masterly  authority  in  The  Entombment 
(No.  1725a),  which  can  only  be  accepted  as  a  school  picture. 

The  ascetic  fervour  tinged  with  a  sense  almost  of  cruel  pleasure 
in  self-inflicted  suffering,  with  which  Ribera  loved  to  invest  his 
semi-nude  figures  of  emaciated  saints,  hermits,  and  martyrs,  will 
be  found  in  the  St.  Paul  the  Hermit.  The  picture  was  bought  in 
1875  for  £252. 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  179 

Without  loss  of  realistic  power,  and  without  affectation  or  con- 
scious striving  for  prettiness,  Ribera  shows  more  human  tenderness 
and  gentle  emotion  in  The  Adoration  of  the  Shepherds  (No.  1721), 
a  picture  signed  and  dated  on  a  stone  in  the  right-hand  corner, 

Jibse  Ribera  espaiiol  Academico  romano,  F.  1650. 

In  accordance  with  the  nature  of  the  subject  he  has  here  refrained 
from  making  use  of  abrupt  light  and  shade,  the  whole  scene  being 
enveloped  in  a  warm  glow.  The  types  are  not  idealised,  but  are 
apparently  faithful  portraits  of  their  respective  models.  Very 
similar  to  the  central  group  in  this  canvas,  but  more  sonorous  in  its 
depth  of  colour,  from  which  gleam  forth  the  strong  lights,  is  the 
Virgin  and  Child  (No.  1724)  in  the  La  Gaze  Room.  The  four 
pictures  of  Philosophers  (Nos.  1726-1729),  likewise  in  the  La  Gaze 
Bequest,  which  the  official  Gatalogue  gives  to  Ribera,  are  certainly 
not  by  that  master.  It  has  been  suggested  that  they  may  be 
the  work  of  Ribera's  facile  and  versatile  pupil,  Luca  Giordano 
("Fa  Presto"),  but  the  poor  quality  of  these  paintings  scarcely 
justifies  even  this  attribution.  They  were  formerly  in  the  collection 
of  General  Mazzavedo. 

Ribera  had  a  romantic  career,  rising  as  he  did  from  absolute 
penury  to  almost  despotic  power  as  a  member  of  a  triumvirate 
that  would  brook  no  competition  in  Naples  and  would  shrink 
from  no  means  to  further  their  schemes.  Nothing  is  known  as  to 
how  he  died.  He  disappeared  in  1656,  and  probably  found  his 
death  in  the  depths  of  the  sea. 


VELAZQUEZ 

The  Gatalogue  of  the  Louvre  collection  contains  an  imposing 
list  of  seven  works  by  the  king  of  Spanish  painters.  Gritical 
examination  of  these  pictures  will,  however,  result  in  the  elimination 


180  THE  LOUVRE 

of  all  but  two  that  figure  in  the  list.  Velazquez,  who  was  destined 
to  stamp  his  great  personality  on  a  whole  generation  of  Spanish 
painters,  but  whose  art  was  little  known  in  Northern  Europe 
previous  to  the  Peninsular  War,  has  exercised  a  paramount  influence 
on  modern  art.  He  was  born  of  noble  descent  at  Seville  in  June 
1599.  Although  originally  destined  for  another  profession,  he 
showed  such  talent  for  art  that  he  was  allowed  to  enter  the  studio 
of  Francisco  Herrera,  of  whose  realistic  tendencies  and  rugged 
strength  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  speak. 

From  his  studio  he  passed  into  that  of  the  cultured  and 
erudite  Francisco  Pacheco,  whose  artistic  achievement  at  its  best 
was  far  in  advance  of  his  professed  academic  principles.  Summoned 
to  Madrid  in  1623  by  the  powerful  Count  Duke  of  Olivarez, 
Velazquez  entered  the  service  of  King  Philip  iv.  Velazquez 
became  his  favourite  Court  Painter,  received  other  important 
offices  and  emoluments,  and  after  his  return  from  his  second  visit 
to  Italy  in  1651 — the  first  visit  had  taken  place  in  1629 — he  was 
appointed  Aposentador  del  Rey,  a  post  which  approximately 
corresponds  with  that  of  Court-Marshal.  He  died  on  the  6th  of 
August  1660,  from  the  results  of  fatigue  and  overwork  in  supervising 
the  arrangements  for  the  betrothal  of  the  Infanta  Maria  Teresa 
to  Louis  XIV.  at  the  Palace  on  the  Isle  of  Pheasants,  at  Irun. 

With  the  exception  of  the  early  hodegones  of  his  student-years 
and  a  few  rare  excursions  into  the  realm  of  religious  and  mytho- 
logical composition,  Velazquez's  life-work,  as  conditioned  by  the 
patronage  of  the  king  and  the  Court,  was  practically  confined  to 
portraiture.  His  unrivalled  greatness  in  this  sphere  is  due  to  the 
perfect  clearness  of  his  vision,  which  made  him  grasp  the  person  or 
scene  before  his  eyes  at  a  single  glance,  and  transpose  his  impression 
to  canvas  with  undisturbed  directness  and  completeness,  and  with 
an  apparent  disregard  of  the  means  of  expression.  There  is  dignity 
and  soberness  in  all  his  portraits ;    perfect  spacing ;    noble,   firm 


PLATE    XXV.— VELAZQUEZ 

(1599-1660) 
SPANISH   SCHOOL 

No.  1731.— PORTRAIT  OF  THE  INFANTA  MARGARITA 
(Portrait  de  I'iiifaute  Margarita  Maria) 

The  Infanta,  who  appears  to  be  about  four  years  of  age,  is  wearing  a  wliite  robe  embroidered  with  black 
She  is  seen  standing  at  half  length,  her  right  hand  on  the  arm  of  a  chaii'. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canva.-i. 

Inscribed  : — "  linfante  margoekite." 

2  it.  3|  in.   X   1  ft.  11 J  in.     (070  x  0-59.) 


\     i 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  181 

contour ;  complete  unity  of  all  the  parts  produced  by  the  sense  of 
ambient  atmosphere.  And  never  is  there  the  slightest  hint  of  trick 
of  hand,  or  mannerism,  or  painting  by  recipe.  Each  picture  is  the 
result  of  close  observation,  recorded  with  admirable  directness  and 
honesty.  This  supreme  master  of  the  painter's  technique  seemed 
to  pay  no  attention  to  technique — or,  at  least,  the  result  is  in- 
variably so  significant  and  so  absorbingly  interesting  that  the 
spectator,  unless  he  approaches  the  picture  with  deliberate  intention 
to  probe  its  secret,  never  thinks  of  the  technical  means  by 
which  life  so  convincing  has  been  breathed  on  to  the  canvas. 


THE   INFANTA 

In  the  Louvre  collection  there  is  but  one  picture  from  which 
it  is  possible  to  judge  the  greatness  of  Velazquez's  art.  That 
picture  is  the  deservedly  famous  and  often-copied  portrait  of  the 
little  Infanta  Margarita  (No.  1731,  Plate  XXV.),  which  has  rightly 
been  placed  in  the  Salon  Carre  among  the  proudest  posses- 
sions which  the  Gallery  can  boast.  The  little  princess,  who  was 
born  in  1651,  the  first  child  of  Mariana  of  Austria,  is  here 
depicted  at  the  age  of  about  four,  so  that  the  date  of  the 
portrait  may  safely  be  assumed  to  be  about  the  year  1655,  and 
not  1659,  as  suggested  by  M.  Lafenestre.  She  is  dressed  in  a 
white  robe  with  black  lace  trimmings.  A  pink  ribbon  is  tied  on 
her  right  side  to  her  soft  light  golden  hair,  which  falls  in  curls 
to  her  shoulders ;  her  right  hand  rests  upon  a  chair,  whilst  the 
left,  the  fingers  of  which  have  been  repainted  owing  to  the 
addition  of  a  narrow  strip  of  canvas  at  the  bottom,  holds  a  flower. 
On  the  top  the  words  linfante  margverite  are  painted  in 
heavy  block  letters  across  the  whole  width  of  the  canvas.  This 
picture,  in  which  childlike  ingenuousness  is  so  happily  blended 
with  quaint  dignity,  and  in  which   even  the  forbidding  ugliness 


182  THE  LOUVRE 

of  the  dress  of  the  period  cannot  destroy  the  little  princess's 
grace  and  doll-like  charm,  Velazquez  has  surely  left  to  the  world 
one  of  the  most  entrancing  portraits  of  lovable  childhood  that  is 
to  be  found  in  the  whole  history  of  art. 


MARIANA  OF  AUSTRIA 

The  other  unquestionably  authentic  work  by  the  master  at 
the  Louvre  is  to  be  found  in  the  La  Caze  Bequest.  It  is  cata- 
logued as  Portrait  of  the  Infanta  Maria  Teresa,  afterwards  Queen  of 
France  (No.  1735),  but  is  in  reality  a  portrait  of  Queen  Mariana  of 
Austria,  the  mother  of  the  Infanta  Margarita  Maria.  Mariana 
was  married  to  Philip  iv.  as  his  second  wife  in  1649,  at  the  age 
of  fourteen.  Velazquez  was  at  that  time  in  Italy,  so  that  the 
duty  of  painting  her  first  portrait  for  the  royal  bridegroom  fell 
to  the  Court  Painter's  son-in-law  and  chief  pupil,  Juan  Bautista 
del  Mazo  (1610-1667). 

The  portrait  at  the  Louvre  was,  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
apparent  age  of  the  child-queen  as  she  is  here  represented,  painted  in 
1651,  when  Velazquez  had  returned  from  his  second  Italian  journey 
and  when  Mariana  was  sixteen  years  of  age.  It  was  probably  a 
preliminary  study  from  life  for  the  larger  portrait  in  the  Vienna 
Gallery.  This  admirable  portrait  is  another  artistic  triumph  over 
unfavourable  conditions  imposed  by  the  hideousness  of  con- 
temporary female  attire,  although  the  forehead  has  been  spoilt 
by  clumsy  repainting.  The  coiffure  in  particular,  a  cascade  of 
false  hair,  bows,  jewels,  and  feathers,  is  more  suggestive  of  some 
exotic  idol  or  fetish  than  of  a  human  being.  In  1863,  before  the 
judgment  of  a  tasteless  age,  which  gave  Velazquez  a  position  far 
below  the  then  absurdly  overrated  Murillo,  was  revised,  this 
portrait  of  Mariana  appeared  at  the  Viardot  sale  and  failed  to 
realise  more  than  £200 ! 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  183 

COPIES  AND   SCHOOL   PICTURES 

Two  other  portraits  in  the  La  Caze  Room  are  attributed  to 
Velazquez.  One  of  these,  a  Portrait  of  Philip  IV.  (No.  1733)  at 
the  age  of  about  fifty,  is  unquestionably  a  wholly  uninspired  and 
fairly  modern  copy  of  the  head  in  the  Prado  (No.  1080).  The 
other,  a  Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman  (No.  1736),  is  an  extremely 
feeble  imitation  of  the  superficial  aspect  of  Velazquez's  manner — 
so  bad  in  drawing,  especially  in  the  attachment  of  the  nose  to 
the  face,  that  it  is  difficult  to  accept  SeSor  Beruete's  attribution 
of  this  picture  to  Juan  Carreflo  de  Miranda  (1614-1685),  an 
able  painter  of  the  Madrid  school.  M.  Henri  Rodolphe  Elissa, 
who  exposed  the  "Tiara  of  Saitaphernes "  forgery,  has  asserted 
that  he  can  prove  both  the  Philip  IV.  and  the  Young  Woman 
to  be  the  work  of  the  Spanish  painter  Escosura,  who  died 
in  the  last  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century.  There  appears 
to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  his  assertion.  The  head  of  Philip, 
more  than  the  other  picture,  appears  to  be  nineteenth-century 
work. 

The  Portrait  of  Philip  IV.,  King  of  Spain,  in  Hunting  Costume 
(No.  1732),  with  a  gun  in  his  right  hand  and  a  dog  sitting  by 
his  side,  in  a  landscape .  background,  is  only  a  contemporary  copy 
of  a  very  similar  picture  in  the  Prado,  to  which  it  is  vastly 
inferior  in  execution.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Prado  picture 
the  king's  hat  is  on  his  head,  whilst  in  the  Louvre 
version,  which  is  probably  by  Mazo,  he  carries  it  in  his  left 
hand.  It  is,  however,  possible  to  detect  in  the  Prado 
portrait  clear  evidence  of  a  pentimento,  from  which  it  can 
be  seen  that  here,  too,  the  hat  was  originally  in  the  same 
position  as  in  the  Louvre  canvas.  Presumably  Velazquez  subse- 
quently made  the  alteration ;  but  the  copy  was  executed  at  an 
earlier  date. 


184  THE  LOUVRE 

THE   "MEETING  OF  THIRTEEN  PEOPLE" 

There  have  been  great  divergences  of  opinion  concerning  the 
strange  little  painting  representing  a  Meeting  of  Thirteen  People 
(No.  1734)  on  a  hill.  It  was  formerly  known  as  A  Meeting  of 
Artists,  because  two  of  the  Spanish  cavaliers  depicted  in  the  group 
were  believed  to  represent  Velazquez  and  Murillo.  Lauded  at 
first  as  one  of  Velazquez's  masterpieces  by  those  who  were 
carried  away  by  the  truly  extraordinary  beauty  of  the  pearly, 
opalescent  colour  harmony  and  the  atmospheric  quality  of  the 
painting,  the  little  picture  has  lately  been  as  violently  abused 
for  its  "poor  design,  weak  execution,  and  commonplace  arrange- 
ment." As  a  matter  of  fact  the  arrangement  is  anything  but 
commonplace,  and  the  picture  has  great  qualities  of  technique 
which  will  always  be  the  delight  of  professional  artists.  It  is 
moreover  admirably  varied  in  gesture  and  action,  even  if  it  has 
certain  weaknesses  which  render  impossible  its  unqualified  attribu- 
tion to  Velazquez.  Here  we  have  clearly  an  excellent  example  of 
his  son-in-law  and  imitator,  J.  B.  del  Mazo.  If  any  proof  were 
needed  for  this  attribution,  it  will  be  found  in  the  figure  on  the 
extreme  left  of  the  composition.  Both  his  legs  are  slanting  for- 
ward so  much  that  his  centre  of  gravity  plumbs  behind  his  heels. 
It  would  really  be  impossible  to  maintain  this  posture,  which,  though 
it  offends  against  the  laws  of  gravity,  is  to  be  found  in  quite  a 
number  of  Mazo's  pictures,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  small  figure  of 
Olivarez  (?)  in  the  middle  distance  on  the  right  in  the  Duke  of 
Westminster's  Don  Baltazar  Carlos  in  the  Riding  School,  in  the 
portrait  of  Don  Baltazar  Carlos  at  The  Hague,  and  in  the  second 
boy  in  The  Family  of  Mazo  at  the  Vienna  Gallery. 

The  soundly  painted  Portrait  of  Don  Pedro  de  Altamira,  Doyen 
of  the  Chapel  Royal  at  Toledo,  afterwards  Cardinal  (No.  1737), 
inscribed  on  the  background  "  ^t  54  dv,  1633,"  is  a  good  character- 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  185 

study  of  an  energetic  and  rather  worldly-looking  Church  dignitary, 
but  does  not  appear  to  be  either  by  Velazquez  or  one  of  his 
immediate  followers. 

There  is  in  the  Spanish  section  of  the  Louvre  another  superbly 
painted,  but  very  problematic.  Head  of  a  Man  (No.  1747),  which, 
on  no  more  plausible  grounds  than  an  accidental  likeness  to  one 
of  the  figures  in  The  Forge  of  Vulcan,  has  by  some  critics  been 
believed  to  be  by  Velazquez.  The  rich  impasto  and  the  careful 
finish  of  the  painting  are  utterly  unlike  Velazquez's  manner ; 
nor  does  the  picture  appear  to  be  of  his  period.  But  whoever 
may  be  its  author,  it  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  paintings  in 
this  section  of  the  Louvre. 


MURILLO 

By  far  the  best  represented  of  all  the  masters  at  the  Spanish 
school  is  Bartolom^  Esteban  Murillo  (1618?-1682).  He  was  born 
at  Seville,  of  poor  parents,  and  studied  as  a  boy  under  Juan  del 
Castillo.  Forced  before  he  had  reached  manhood  to  gain  his 
livelihood,  he  took  to  manufacturing  artistically  worthless  de- 
votional pictures  on  saga-cloth,  for  sale  at  the  weekly  fairs  in 
the  poor  quarter  of  Seville.  This  early  practice  of  rather 
mechanical  production,  and  the  habit,  acquired  by  necessity,  of 
working  to  please  the  public,  clung  to  him  in  after  life  and  are 
responsible  for  much  that  the  modern  mind  finds  distasteful  in 
his  art — a  certain  sickly  sentimentality  that  often  takes  the  place 
of  real  sentiment,  and  an  artificiality  of  arrangement  even  where 
the  types  are  realistic  renderings  of  the  people  among  whom  he 
spent  his  days. 

With  his  small  savings  from  the  proceeds  of  his  crude  popular 
pictures  Murillo  proceeded  to  Madrid,  where  Velazquez  assisted  him 
by  deed,  advice,  and  example,  though  the  two  artists  were  probably 

24 


186  THE  LOUVRE 

never  in  the  relation  of  master  and  pupil.  After  about  two  years 
thus  profitably  spent  at  Madrid,  Murillo  returned  to  Seville, 
where  he  continued  to  work  until  his  death  in  1682,  and  rose  to 
the  very  summit  of  fame  and  popularity.  At  his  best  Murillo 
was  a  colourist  of  great  charm  and  a  technician  of  the  rarest 
skill.  His  art  is  most  admirable  where  he  adheres  most  closely 
to  the  realistic  tradition  of  his  country.  It  is  scarcely  to  be 
credited  that  the  same  hand  which  produced  so  many  vaporous 
and  vapid  Madonnas  is  responsible  for  a  picture  painted  with 
such  superb  breadth  and  incisive  vigour  as  The  Young  Beggar 
(No.  1717),  which  is  almost  worthy  of  the  brush  of  Velazquez 
in  his  Sevillan  period.  The  decidedly  unsavoury  subject  is  made 
acceptable  by  the  consummate  artistry  of  the  treatment. 

"THE   IMMACULATE   CONCEPTION" 

It  is  not,  however,  to  pictures  of  this  type  that  Murillo  owed 
his  widespread  popularity.  Generations  of  enthusiastic  admirers 
have  stood  in  silent  awe  before  his  large  painting  of  The  Im- 
maculate Conception  (No.  1709,  Plate  XXVI.),  which  is  certainly 
one  of  the  best  of  innumerable  versions  of  the  same  subject — 
the  Virgin  standing  on  a  crescent  moon,  with  ecstatic  gaze,  and 
hands  pressed  to  her  breast,  and  surrounded  by  swarms  of  joyous 
angel-children — painted  by  Murillo  to  meet  an  apparently  insati- 
able demand.  There  is  something  of  real  ecstasy  in  this  con- 
ception. To  find  a  similar  mmhidezza  of  pigment  one  must  turn 
to  certain  famous  works  by  Andrea  del  Sarto :  it  is  a  quality 
which  is  generally  conspicuously  absent  from  Spanish  painting 
and  which,  if  carried  a  step  farther,  as  it  sometimes  was  carried 
by  Murillo,  would  result  in  fuzzy  vapidness.  This  famous  picture 
has  the  distinction  of  being  the  most  costly  purchase  ever  made 
for  the  Louvre,  the  price  paid  for  it  at  the  Marshal  Soult  sale 


PLATE    XXVI.— MURILLO 

(1618  ?-1682) 

SPANISH   SCHOOL 

No.  1709.— THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION 

(La  Concoption  imraaculee  de  la  Vierge) 

The  Virgin,  wearing  a  white  robe  with  a  blue  mantle  over  her  left  .shoulder,  has  her  hands  crossed  over 
her  breast ;  she  is  standing  in  the  hollow  of  a  two-horned  crescent,  and  gazing  heavenwards.  About  twenty- 
one  cherubs  and  ten  heads  are  seen  in  different  parts  of  the  composition. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

y  ft.  0  in.  X  6  ft.  3  in.     (274  x  190.) 


THE  SPANISH  SCHOOL  187 

in  1852 — that  is  many  years  before  American  competition  had 
established  the  vastly  enhanced  standards  of  value  which  now 
prevail — being  as  much  as  615,300  fr.,  or  £24,612. 

Apparently  of  earlier  date  is  the  other  version  of  the  same 
subject  at  the  Louvre.  This  Immaculate  Conception  (No.  1708)  is 
not  painted  in  the  same  spirit  of  exaltation  as  the  version  just 
described,  but  has  a  happy  passage  of  realistic  character-painting 
in  the  six  kneeling  figures  on  the  left.  On  the  right  two  angels 
carry  a  scroll  with  the  inscription  in  principio  dilexit  eam. 
The  picture  was  painted  in  1656-57  for  the  Church  of  Santa  Maria 
la  Blanca  at  Seville,  and  was  carried  off  to  France,  with  many 
other  of  the  master's  works,  by  Marshal  Soult. 


THE    "BIRTH   OF  THE   VIRGIN" 

Another  picture  that  formed  part  of  the  loot  taken  by 
Napoleon's  general  and  was  taken  in  1855  from  his  son,  the 
Duke  of  Dalmatia,  in  liquidation  of  a  debt  of  £6000,  is 
The  Birth  of  the  Virgin  (No.  1710).  The  National  Gallery  in 
London  owns  a  small  preliminary  study  for  this  painting, 
which  was  executed  in  1655  for  Seville  Cathedral.  The  centre 
is  occupied  by  a  beautifully  disposed  group  of  four  women  and 
four  winged  heavenly  visitors  attending  to  the  Infant's  bath ; 
in  the  background  on  the  left  St.  Anne,  raised  in  her  bed, 
is  receiving  visitors,  and  on  the  right  are  seen  two  attendants 
airing  linen  at  a  fireplace.  The  strange  assemblage,  in  which  the 
earthly  and  the  heavenly  are  without  incongruity  brought  into 
such  close  contact  that  one  of  the  boy-angels  is  actually  occupied 
with  a  dog,  is  completed  by  another  four  angels  floating  in  the 
air  above  the  Infant.  In  composition,  distribution  of  light  and 
shade,  and  in  harmonious  blending  of  mellow  colour  this  picture 
ranks  among  Murillo's  highest  achievements.     According  to  Cean 


188  THE  LOUVRE 

Bermudez,  the  roundness,  beauty  of  shape,  and  rosy  complexion 
of  the  waiting- woman's  arm  in  the  foreground  "  excited  the  jealous 
envy  of  the  ladies  of  Seville."  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
before  its  acquisition  by  the  Louvre  the  Birth  of  the  Virgin 
was  brought  to  England  in  1823,  when  the  owners  vainly  tried 
to  find  a  purchaser. 


"THE  ANGELS'  KITCHEN" 

Yet  another  deservedly  famous  work  by  Murillo,  removed  from 
a  Franciscan  convent  at  Seville  by  the  insatiable  greed  of  Marshal 
Soult,  is  the  now  extensively  restored  large  picture  known  as 
The  Miracle  of  San  Diego,  or  The  Angels'  Kitchen  (No.  1716).  The 
composition  is  divided  by  two  large  figures  of  angels  into  two 
halves.  On  the  left  two  knights  of  Calatrava  are  shown  in  by  a 
Franciscan  brother  and  behold  St.  Diego  in  prayer  miraculously 
raised  into  the  air  and  surrounded  by  a  flood  of  light.  On  the 
right  the  angels  are  occupied  with  the  preparation  of  the  repast 
for  which  the  Saint  has  sent  his  prayer  to  the  Virgin.  A  Franciscan 
is  watching  the  scene  from  the  distance  with  a  gesture  of  amaze- 
ment. Here  again  the  real  and  the  supernatural  are  blended 
with  unaffected  naivete,  the  unity  of  the  contending  elements 
being  established  by  the  masterly  rendering  of  light  and  atmo- 
sphere. An  account  of  the  miracle  is  given  on  a  cartouche  in 
the  foreground;  whilst  a  piece  of  paper  on  the  left  holds  the 
signature 

BART-EST.    MURILLO,    1646. 

The  Angels'  Kitchen  was  bought  from  the  despoiler's  heirs  for  £3420. 

The  Virgin  of  the  Rosary  (No.  1712),  unlike  the  majority  of 
Murillo's  representations  of  the  Mother  of  God,  has  scarcely  a 
trace  of  spiritual  exaltation,  but  is  merely  a  handsome  type  of  a 


THE  SPAmSH  SCHOOL  189 

happy  and  contented  Spanish  mother.  The  folds  of  her  outer 
garment  are  arranged  in  florid  and  meaningless  profusion. 

The  Holy  Family  (No.  1713),  also  known  as  The  Virgin  of 
Seville,  is  a  genuine  and  characteristic,  though  strangely  overrated 
work  by  the  master,  and  bears  the  signature 

BARTOLOM   DE    MURILLO    F.    HISPAN. 

The  Virgin  in  Glory  (No.  1711)  is,  to  say  the  least,  of  doubtful 
authenticity.  The  small  companion  pictures,  Christ  in  the  Garden 
of  Olives  (No.  1714)  and  Christ  at  the  Column  and  St.  Peter  (No. 
1715),  are  painted  on  marble,  to  which  fact  they  owe  the  un- 
pleasant coldness  of  their  colouring. 

In  the  La  Caze  Room  are  two  portraits.  The  Poet  Quevedo 
(No.  1718)  and  The  Duke  of  OssuTia  (No.  1719),  which  the  official 
Catalogue  ascribes  to  Murillo.  Quite  apart  from  the  fact  that  the 
artist  was  only  six  years  of  age  when  the  Duke  of  Ossuna  died, 
the  quality  of  the  painting  does  not  justify  these  attributions.  Like 
the  head  of  Philip  iv.  in  the  same  room,  they  were  probably 
painted  by  Escosura,  a  late-nineteenth-century  Spaniard 


THE   SCHOOL   OF   MADRID 

We  must  now  return  to  Madrid,  where  the  example  of 
Velazquez  had  inspired  a  fairly  numerous  group  of  able  painters 
without  particular  genius,  whose  art,  being  entirely  derivative, 
carried  within  itself  the  germ  of  decay  and  sank  to  complete 
insignificance  before  the  close  of  the  century.  The  most  dis- 
tinguished artist  of  this  group  is  Juan  Bautista  del  Mazo,  who  has 
already  been  referred  to  as  the  author  of  the  Meeting  of  Thirteen 
People  and  probably  of  the  Philip  1 V.  in  Hunting  Costume.  So  well 
did  he  succeed  in  appropriating  his  father-in-law's  style  that  his  best 
works  have  frequently  passed  under  his  illustrious  master's  name. 


190  THE  LOUVRE 

Another  important  painter  of  the  Madrid  school  is  Carreno 
de  Miranda  (Nos.  1614-1685),  who  benefited  by  Velazquez's  patron- 
age, became  painter  of  the  Palace  in  1669,  and  Court  Painter  and 
Assistant  Seneschal  in  1671.  Although  in  his  later  years  he 
devoted  himself  largely  to  subject  pictures  which  are  distin- 
guished by  a  warmer  colouring  than  most  of  the  productions 
by  the  Madrid  school  of  the  period,  he  achieved  his  greatest 
successes  as  a  portrait  painter.  He  was  considerably  influ- 
enced by  the  paintings  of  Van  Dyck,  which  he  had  occasion 
to  study  in  the  royal  palaces.  His  large  St.  Ambrose  distribtding 
Alms  (No.  1702),  in  the  La  Caze  Gallery,  is  a  hurriedly 
executed  work  which  does  not  show  his  art  to  the  best  advantage. 
It  figured  in  the  sale  of  the  Soult  collection,  when  it  failed  to 
realise  £20. 

Far  more  typical  of  its  author's  best  manner  is  The  Burning 
Bush  (No.  1703)  by  Francisco  Collantes  (1599-1656),  a  Madrid 
painter  who  studied  under  Vincente  Carducho,  but  was  influenced 
by  Bassano.  He  was  an  excellent  colourist,  especially  in  his  land- 
scape paintings  with  small  figures.  His  most  famous  picture  is 
The  Vision  of  Ezekiel,  formerly  at  the  Buen  Retiro  Palace  and 
now  in  the  Prado  Gallery. 

Juan  de  Arellano  (1614^1676),  the  painter  of  the  Flowers 
(No.  1701),  worked  at  Madrid,  unknown  and  in  abject  poverty, 
until  at  the  age  of  thirty-six  he  began  to  devote  himself  to 
flower-painting,  a  branch  of  art  in  which  he  developed  consider- 
able skill,  and  rose  to  great  popularity. 

Yet  another  Madrid  painter  who  is  but  indifierently  represented 
at  the  Louvre  by  a  still  life  of  Fruit  and  Musical  Instruments  (No. 
1720)  in  the  La  Caze  collection,  is  Antonio  Pereda  (1599-1669). 
Although  a  contemporary  of  Velazquez  and  working  in  the  same 
city,  he  was  not  appreciably  influenced  by  that  master.  He  was 
a  pupil  of   Pedro    de    las   Cuevas,    and    his    style    shows    certain 


THE  SPANISH   SCHOOL  191 

affinities  with   Ribera.      His   works   are    rarely  to    be    met   with 
outside  the  galleries  and  churches  of  his  own  country. 

The  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  marked  the  complete 
decadence  of  the  Spanish  school,  which  was  precipitated  and 
received  its  final  seal  by  the  advent  in  1692  of  the  Neapolitan 
Luca  Giordano,  whose  rare  facility  in  the  production  of  showy, 
flashy,  meretricious  works  earned  for  him  the  sobriquet  "Fa 
Presto,"  and  whose  prodigious  success  was  a  powerful  incentive 
to  emulation.  More  fatal  even  than  the  influence  of  Luca  Giordano 
was  that  of  the  German  artist  Raphael  Mengs,  an  uninspired  eclectic 
who  became  Court  Painter  to  Charles  iii.,  and  who  is  referred  to 
in  the  chapter  dealing  with  the  German  pictures  at  the  Louvre. 


GOYA 

In  this  time  of  complete  stagnation  the  fascinating  person- 
ality of  Francisco  Goya  y  Lucientes  (1746-1828)  flashes  like  a 
bright  meteor  through  the  dark  night  of  Spanish  art.  Goya 
takes  a  unique  position  in  the  art  of  his  country — or,  indeed,  of 
the  world.  He  was  as  much  the  last  of  the  old  masters  as  he  is 
the  first  of  the  moderns.  A  man  of  fiery  temperament,  impulsive, 
unruly,  opposed  to  authority,  he  was  terribly  unequal  in  his  per- 
formance. It  is  as  unnecessary  to  state  who  were  his  masters  as 
it  is  impossible  to  speak  of  his  style  in  general  terms,  for  there 
probably  never  was  an  artist  who  worked  in  so  many  different 
styles,  experimented  in  so  many  different  mediums,  and  treated 
so  vast  a  range  of  subjects  as  Goya.  He  was  a  creature  of  moods, 
and  changed  his  method  of  painting  as  easily  as  his  political 
allegiance  from  Bourbon  to  Bonaparte  and  back  again  to  Bourbon. 

His  four  pictures  at  the  Louvre  are  without  exception 
portraits,  and  do  not  therefore  illustrate  his  highly  developed 
sense  of  the   dramatic.      But   they  serve   admirably  to  show  his 


192  THE  LOUVRE 

active  protest  against  the  classicist  affectation  prevalent  at  his 
time,  and  his  return  to  the  healthy  realism  which  is  the  heritage 
of  his  race.  The  Portrait  of  F.  Guillemardet,  Ambassador  of  the 
French  Republic  to  Spain  (No.  1704),  is  an  admirably  honest  piece 
of  portraiture,  dignified  but  perfectly  natural  in  pose,  strong  in 
expression  and  pleasing  in  colour.  It  was  bequeathed  to  the  Louvre 
by  Guillemardet,  together  with  the  Young  Spanish  Woman  (No.  1705) 
in  a  black  mantilla,  standing  with  crossed  arms  against  a  pearly- 
grey  landscape  background.  The  seated  half-figure  of  the  rather 
corpulent  Young  Spanish  Woman  (No.  1705a)  was  bought  at  the 
Kums  sale  at  Antwerp  for  £1276 ;  and  the  portrait  of  Don  Perez 
de  Castro  (No.  1705b)  was  acquired  in  1902  for  £1200.  Goya  was  an 
isolated  figure  in  Spanish  art  of  the  time.  He  left  no  "school," 
but  his  influence  was  one  of  the  leading  factors  in  the  rise  of  the 
modern  movement  in  France. 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL 

WE  have  already  followed  the  development  of  the  early  Flemish 
or  Netherlandish  art  during  the  fifteenth  century,  and 
observed  how  it  eventually  passed  under  the  Italianising 
influences  which  are  unmistakable  in  the  pictures  of  Barend  van 
Orley  (1495  ?-1542)  and  his  contemporaries.  The  early  painters  of 
Holland  as  distinct  from  Flanders  cannot  be  traced  with  any 
certainty  much  farther  back  than  Albert  von  Ouwater  (fl.  1420- 
1460),  who  worked  at  Haarlem  from  1430  to  1460.  As  we  have 
already  seen,  the  early  Flemish  painter,  Gerard  David  (1460  ?-1523), 
was  born  at  Ouwater,  which  may  well  have  had  its  school  of 
painters.  Neither  Albert  von  Ouwater,  who  is  represented  to-day 
by  a  single  work,  the  Raising  of  Lazarus  in  the  BerKn  Gallery, 
nor  his  unidentifiable  contemporary  who  painted  the  Exhwmaticm 
of  St.  Hubert,  in  the  National  Gallery  (No.  783),  are  included  in 
the  collection  of  pictures  at  the  Louvre. 

GERARD   OF  HAARLEM 

The  influence  of  these  painters  and  Dieiick  Bouts  is  seen  in 
the  rare  works  of  Geertgen  tot  S.  Jans,  or  Gerard  of  Haarlem 
(1465-1493)  whose  Raising  of  Lazarus  (No,  2563a)  in  this  collection 
is  an  achievement  of  the  highest  order,  and  was  purchased  as 
recently  as  1902  for  £4000  from  Baron  d'Albenas,  after  having 
been  for  many  years  in  Spain.  This  pupil  or  follower  of  the 
Ouwater  master  was  a  native  of  Leyden,  and  worked  at  Haarlem. 
He  took  his  name   from  the  commandery  of  the   Knights  of  St. 

25 


194  THE  LOUVRE 

John  at  Haarlem  for  whom  he  worked,  as  we  see  from  the  careful 
inscription,  "  Gerardus  Leydanus  pictor  ad  S.  lo.  Baptist.  Harlem 
pinxt,"  on  his  triptych  at  Vienna. 

Among  his  contemporaries  were  Cornells  Engelbrechtsen,  who 
was  born  in  1468  at  Ley  den,  where  he  died  in  1533,  and  Lucas  van 
Leyden  (1494-1533).  The  latter  played  an  important  part  as  an 
engraver  quite  as  much  as  a  painter  in  the  university  town  of 
Leyden,  which  now  possesses  his  large  Last  Judgm&ni  and  became 
famous  as  the  birthplace  of  Rembrandt  in  1606.  The  Louvre 
possesses  no  picture  by  either  Engelbrechtsen  or  Lucas  van 
Leyden. 

Jacob  Cornelisz  van  Oostsanen  (fl.  1470-1533)  is  also  un- 
represented here.  Portraits  by  painters  in  this  group  are  often 
confused,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Portrait  of  the  Duke  of  East  Friesland, 
in  the  Oldenburg  Gallery,  which  has  been  attributed  to  both  Lucas 
van  Leyden  and  Jacob  Cornelisz.  A  pupil  of  the  latter  may  have 
painted  the  Cana  of  Galilee  (No.  2640c).  It  is  safe  to  assign 
to  "  the  Master  of  the  Female  Half  Figures,"  the  Young  Lady 
Reading  (No.  2641c),  which  has  a  close  analogy  with  the  well-known 
picture  in  the  Harrach  collection  at  Vienna,  representing  half- 
length  figures  of  three  young  ladies  in  crimson  velvet  dresses  cut 
square  at  the  neck,  and  singing  to  the  accompaniment  of  a  flute  and 
a  lute.  The  name  of  this  painter  is  not  known,  but  his  pictures, 
which  are  neither  numerous  nor  of  any  conspicuous  merit,  are 
easily  recognisable. 

To  this  period  of  transition  and  mediocre  painting  belongs 
Jan  Scorel  (1495-1562),  whose  Portrait  of  Paracelsus  the  Doctor 
(No.  2567a)  is  inscribed : 

"formoso  doctor  paraselsus," 

and  is  in  every  way  superior  to  the  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  2641b), 
which  is  labelled  with  the  name  of  Scorel,  but  catalogued  as  being 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  195 

by  an  unknown  artist.  From  Scorel,  a  much  travelled  Dutch  artist, 
who  at  one  time  worked  at  Nuremburg  with  Albrecht  Diirer  and 
visited  Venice  and  the  East,  we  naturally  pass  to  Jan  Mostaert 
of  Haarlem.  Mostaert  of  Haarlem  is  unrepresented  at  the 
Louvre,  a  remark  which  equally  well  applies  to  the  anonymous 
"  Pseudo-Mostaert,"  who  painted  so  much  in  his  style  that  a  large 
number  of  inferior  productions  have  been  credited  to  him  from  time 
to  time.  Pictures  of  this  type  vary  so  considerably  that  the  name 
"  Pseudo-Mostaert "  is  little  more  than  a  generic  designation  for 
unassignable  Flemish  and  Dutch  pictures  of  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century ;  such  pictures  bear  some  relationship  to  the 
Christ  hearing  His  Cross  (No.  2299),  and  the  Alraham's  Sacrijice 
(No.  2300),  ofl&cially  attributed  to  the  little-known  and  quite 
negligible  painter  Alart  Claeszoon  (1498-1564)  of  Leyden. 


SIR  ANTONIS  MOR 

From  Leyden  we  may  pass  to  Utrecht,  which  was  the  birth- 
place of  the  much-travelled,  distinguished,  and  cosmopolitan  painter, 
Antonis  Mor  (1512-1578?).  He  was  a  pupil  of  Jan  Scorel,  but 
soon  freed  himself  from  the  hard  manner  he  acquired  under  that 
master  by  his  study  in  Italy  of  the  best  works  of  the  Venetians. 
Indeed,  some  of  his  pictures  have  passed  as  the  work  of  Calcar, 
the  pupil  of  Titian.  Mor,  or  Moro,  excelled  as  a  painter  of  vigorous 
and  truthful  portraits,  and  the  portraits  and  replicas  he  painted 
of  Queen  Mary  are  well  known.  The  Prado  Gallery  at  Madrid 
and  the  Vienna  Gallery  contain  good  examples  of  his  art,  and 
he  is  fairly  weU  represented  in  the  Louvre.  While  he  was  in 
the  service  of  Philip  ii.  of  Spain  he  hved  in  much  splendour,  and 
was  amply  paid  for  his  work.  His  close  intimacy  with  the  monarch 
induced  him  on  one  occasion  to  take  the  liberty  of  touching  with 
a  brush  dipped  in  red  paint  the  hand  of  the  king.      This  serious 


196  THE  LOUVRE 

breach  of  Court  etiquette  created  a  profound  impression  on  the 
courtiers  present ;  and,  although  the  painter  sued  for  pardon  and 
obtained  it  from  the  king,  he  soon  recognised  that  he  had  made 
himself  obnoxious  to  the  Inquisition,  who  asserted  that  Moro 
had  got  from  the  heretic  English,  while  painting  the  portrait  of 
Queen  Mary,  a  charm  that  enabled  him  to  bewitch  the  Spanish 
monarch.  Being  thus  compelled  to  leave  Spain,  he  settled  in 
Antwerp,  where  he  died  between  1576  and  1578. 

The  pictures  of  Mor,  who  was  the  contemporary  of  Titian, 
at  different  periods  of  his  art  bear  traces  of  the  Dutch,  Spanish, 
and  Flemish  schools.  He  in  turn  also  had  an  influence  on  the 
portrait  painters  of  Spain  half  a  century  before  the  birth  of 
Velazquez.  The,  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  2478),  which  is  signed  and 
dated : 

"  ANT  MORO  pingebat,  1565, 

was  in  the  past  held  by  some  writers  to  bear  the  features 
of  Sir  Francis  Drake,  who  was,  however,  at  the  date  here 
given  only  twenty-one  years  of  age.  The  two  large  paintings 
in  the  Duchdtel  Bequest  which  pass  as  the  Portrait  of  Louis 
de  Rio  and  His  Wife  (No.  2480  and  No.  2481)  are,  judging  by 
the  attitudes  of  the  figures  and  the  shape  of  the  panels,  the 
wings  of  a  large  altarpiece.  The  Dwarf  of  Charles  V.  (No.  2479) 
reminds  us  that  the  painter,  while  still  young,  was  taken  into 
the  service  of  that  emperor.  The  Portrait  of  Edward  VI.  of 
England  (No.  2481a)  bears  a  very  suspicious-looking  inscription. 

SPANISH  OPPRESSION 

The  political  events  of  the  reign  of  Philip  ii.  of  Spain,  the 
mistaken,  mischievous,  and  oppressive  policy  he  adopted  with  regard 
to  his  territory  in  the  Netherlands,  and  the  contempt  with  which 
he  treated  his  Dutch  subjects,  soon   alienated  their  sympathies ; 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  197 

but  the  Duke  of  Alva  by  his  harshness  and  bigotry  incited  them 
to  frenzy.  When  he  set  forth  in  1567,  all  hope  of  peace  and  mercy 
fled  before  him,  and  within  a  short  period  his  tyranny  and  ferocity 
fanned  the  flame  of  rebellion,  which  after  a  struggle  of  eighty  years 
was  to  end  in  the  Peace  of  Miinster  of  1648.  In  that  year  Spain 
ignominiously  surrendered,  and  the  independence  of  the  northern 
Netherlands  was  recognised.  During  the  long  period  which 
elapsed  between  the  Union  of  Utrecht  in  1579  and  the  negotiations 
at  Osnabriick  and  Miinster  in  1648  must  have  been  destroyed 
innumerable  religious  pictures,  the  loss  of  which  renders  it  almost 
impossible  for  us  to  estimate  the  fuU  significance  of  artistic 
endeavour  in  Holland  in  the  closing  years  of  the  sixteenth 
century. 

A  new  era  in  Dutch  history,  social  life  and  art  was  beginning 
to  open  out  by  the  year  1612,  when  Abraham  Blomaert  (1564-1651) 
painted  and  signed  his  very  large  Nativity  (No.  2327),  which  was 
formerly  attributed  to  Bernardino  Fassolo.  Blomaert's  Portrait  of 
a  Man  (No.  2327a)  is  also  a  signed  work. 


HISTORY  AND  PORTRAIT  PAINTERS 

Blomaert's  contemporary,  Michiel  Jansz  Mierevelt  (1567-1641), 
who  was  at  one  time  Court  painter  to  the  Princes  of  Orange  at 
The  Hague,  and  was  with  undue  flattery  hailed  as  the  "  New  Xeuxis 
of  Delft,"  is  represented  by  the  Portrait  of  Olden  Barnevelt  (No.  2465) 
and  three  other  portraits,  one  of  which  (No.  2466)  is  in  a  very  bad 
state.  Stiff  but  characteristic  is  the  Portrait  of  a  Woman  (No.  2534), 
which  was  painted  by  Jan  van  Ravesteyn  (1572-1657)  in  1633, 
while  his  initials  are  also  found  on  a  panel  (No.  2535)  which  was 
commissioned  of  him  in  the  following  year.  Although  Gerard 
Verspronck  (1600-1651)  was  many  years  his  junior,  and  in  1641, 
in  the  period  of  his  maturity,  achieved  the  Portrait  of  a  Lady 


198  THE  LOUVRE 

(No.  2576a),  the  top  corners  of  which  have  been  added,  he  painted 
on  the  lines  of  tradition,  and  showed  little  originality.  He  came 
under  the  influence  of  Frans  Hals,  under  whose  name  his  pictures 
often  pass. 

CORNELIS  JANSSEN 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  numerous  portraits  which  Cornells 
Janssen  van  Ceulen  (1593-1664?)  undertook  in  England,  give 
signs  of  the  new  artistic  impulse  which  was  daily  manifesting 
itself  in  Holland  in  the  early  works  of  Frans  Hals,  Janssen,  who 
was  baptized  at  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  Austin  Friars, 
London,  throve  until  the  establishment  in  England  of  Van  Dyck, 
before  whom  he  quickly  had  to  give  way ;  although  he  withdrew 
to  Kent  and  lived  in  retirement,  he  did  not  receive  the  Speaker's 
warrant  to  pass  beyond  seas  until  1643.  That  "  Cornelius  Johnson 
Picture  Drawer"  made  use  of  pallid  flesh  tones  and  lifeless  grey 
tones,  is  obvious  from  the  two  portraits  (No.  2338  and  No.  2339) 
exhibited  in  the  Louvre. 

The  very  modern  looking  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man  (No.  2303a), 
signed  "d.  bailly,"  is  officially  held  to  be  the  work  of  a  Leyden 
painter  of  that  name  who  would  appear  to  have  been  a  contem- 
porary of  Cornells  Janssen. 


FRANS  HALS 

Although  the  great  Dutch  painter,  Frans  Hals  (1580?-1666) 
was  born  at  Antwerp,  his  parents  were  natives  of  Haarlem,  whither 
he  removed  about  1600,  and  where  he  settled  for  the  remainder 
of  his  eventful,  irregular,  and  improvident  career.  This  lusty 
and  unromantic  master  by  his  forceful  characterisation,  his  rapid 
wielding  of  his  brush,  and  his  frank  realism,  in  a  few  years  trans- 
formed the  earlier  portrait-making  of  Holland,  and  the  rendering 


PLATE    XXVII.— FKANS    HALS 

(1580  ?-1666) 

DUTCH    SCHOOL 

No.  2384.— THE   GIPSY   GIRL 

(La  Bolieniienuc) 

She  wears  a  red  dress,  wUicli  is  open  at  tlie  neck  ;  she  smiles  as  she  turns  her  eyes  to  the  right;  half- 
length  figure. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

2  ft.  6  in.  X  2  ft.  3  in.     (0-76  x  O'GS.) 


.\ 


u 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  199 

of  the  commonplace  and  obvious  likeness  of  an  individual,  as  seen 
in  the  works  of  Moreelse  and  others,  into  the  region  of  great  art. 
He  was  by  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  senior  of  Rembrandt, 
who  is  the  greatest  genius  among  Dutch  painters,  and  developed 
his  art  on  logical  lines.  It  is,  however,  necessary  to  know  the  out- 
standing facts  of  his  personal  history,  the  fluctuating  circumstances 
under  which  he  worked,  and  the  grinding  poverty  of  his  latest 
period.  Perhaps  no  other  painter  in  the  whole  range  of  art  was 
so  affected  by  his  environment  as  Hals. 

Whether  he  was  a  pupil  of  Cornells  Cornelissen,  Hendrick 
Goltzius,  and  Karel  van  Mander  (the  Dutch  Vasari),  is  not  known 
with  any  certainty,  and  no  picture  painted  by  him  earlier  than  1613, 
when  he  may  have  been  thirty-three  years  of  age,  is  known  to-day. 
Early  in  the  year  1616,  when  he  painted  his  famous  Banquet  of 
the  Oncers  of  the  St.  Joris  Shooting  Guild,  one  of  his  early  master- 
pieces still  preserved  in  the  small  gallery  at  Haarlem,  he  was 
summoned  before  the  Burgomaster  of  the  "  town  of  the  tulip,"  and 
reprimanded  for  his  cruelty  to  his  first  wife.  Exactly  a  year  later 
he  married  a  second  time,  and  as  the  years  went  on  he  became 
the  father  of  at  least  six  sons  who  adopted  the  profession  of  the 
painter  but  earned  no  permanent  success.  The  Louvre  possesses 
no  example  of  his  Doelen-pieces  of  archer-groups  which  won  him  his 
earliest  fame  in  his  own  country,  but  is  fortunate  enough  to  contain 
the  famous  Gipsy  Girl  (No.  2384,  Plate  XXVII.),  which  alone 
would  have  earned  for  him  the  title  of  "the  master  of  the  laugh." 
It  passed  through  the  M^nars  sale  in  1792  for  301  livres.  The  three 
pictures  of  the  Beresteyn  family  were  bought  for  £4000  in  1884, 
when  his  paintings  were  not  as  highly  prized  as  they  are  to-day. 
They  give  an  excellent  idea  of  the  virility  his  art  had  attained  by 
about  1629.  The  best  of  these  is  the  Portrait  of  Nicolaes  van 
Beresteyn  (No.  2386),  which  is  inscribed,  "  Aetat  suae  40. 1629."  His  hands 
are  superbly  painted  ;  while  the  companion  Portrait  (No.  2387)  of  his 


200  THE  LOUVRE 

wife  is  equally  striking.  The  large  and  imposing  Portrait-Crroup  of 
the  Beresteyn  Family  (No.  2388)  is  marred  by  the  excessive  use  in 
places  of  a  strong  red,  and  has  been  enlarged  by  the  addition 
down  the  right  side  of  the  canvas  of  a  strip  about  fourteen  inches 
broad,  but  yet  shows  a  certain  felicity  of  grouping,  and  a  joyous 
and  exuberant  outlook.  The  Portrait  of  Rene  Descartes,  the  French 
Philosopher  (No.  2383)  is  so  simple  in  treatment  and  so  easy  in 
pose,  that  it  makes  an  instant  appeal  to  the  student.  Another 
Portrait  of  Descartes  (No.  78),  by  S^bastien  Bourdon,  is  in  this 
gallery,  and  a  third  was  in  the  Ars^ne  Houssaye  collection.  The 
Pwtrait  of  a  Lady  in  a  Black  Dress  (No.  2385,  Plate  XXVIII.) 
is  unaffected  and  lifelike,  while  the  subtle  and  hasty  brushing  in 
of  the  gloves  could  only  have  been  done  by  a  great  painter. 
It  seems  to  have  been  generally  overlooked  that  a  study  for  this 
picture  is  in  the  collection  of  Lord  Ronald  Gower,  and  has  for 
some  time  past  been  on  loan  to  the  Fitz William  Museum,  Cam- 
bridge. In  the  study,  however,  the  artist  had  not  yet  thought  of 
the  gloves. 

In  1654,  Hals  had  to  appear  before  a  public  notary  of  Haarlem 
at  the  instance  of  his  landlord,  who  sued  him  for  debt.  The  great 
Dutch  painter  in  his  testimony  affirmed  that  his  only  possessions 
were  two  pictures  by  Vermander  and  Van  Heemskerck,  and  three 
by  himself  and  one  of  his  sons,  as  well  as  three  mattresses 
and  bolsters,  a  cupboard  and  a  table !  The  Louvre  exhibits  no 
pictorial  record  of  Hals's  latest  phase,  when  he  was  deserted  by 
his  friends,  neglected  by  art  patrons,  and  no  longer  possessed  any 
inner  moral  support. 

The  colouring  of  his  early  portraits  is  vigorous,  the  tone  deep, 
and  the  execution  careful ;  gradually  he  employs  richer  colouring, 
subordinates  the  local  colours,  and  becomes  broader  in  treatment. 
From  about  1650  his  olive-greens  gradually  take  on  a  more  ash- 
grey  hue,  until  we  are  inclined  to  the  belief  that  if  the  master 


PLATE    XXVIIL— FRANS    HALS 
(1580  ?-1666) 

DUTCH  SCHOOL 

No.  2385.— PORTRA.it   OF   A   LADY   IN   A   BLACK    DRESS 

(Portrait  de  Feiiime) 

A  middle-aged  wuiuau  wearing  a  black  dress,  witli  white  collar,  cuffs  and  cap,  is  seen  at  three-quarter 
length,  standing  and  turned  three-quarters  to  the  left ;  in  her  hands,  which  are  superposed,  she  holds 
her  gloves. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

3  ft.  31  in.  X  2  ft.  7J  in.     (1-00  x  080.) 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  201 

had  been  able  to  dispense  with  colour  altogether,  he  would  have 
willingly  done  so.  It  is  then  that  the  colours  on  his  palette,  like 
the  outer  world,  became  grey  and  black  for  him. 

This  great  master  of  the  brush  some  time  before  his  death 
had  to  avail  himself  of  poor  relief  granted  by  the  municipality  of 
Haarlem,  and  after  his  death,  in  1666,  his  widow  received  an 
allowance  of  fourteen  sous  a  week !  Such  was  the  tragic  end  of 
one  of  the  most  accomplished  of  portrait  painters  in  the  whole 
range  of  art. 

DUTCH  INDEPENDENCE 

Holland  after  a  terrible  struggle  had  ultimately  succeeded 
in  throwing  off  the  Spanish  yoke  before  the  art  of  Hals  was  on 
the  wane.  Dutch  art  then  became  gradually  more  independent, 
self-centred,  democratic  in  outlook,  and  Protestant  in  tendency. 
Religious  subjects  became  less  frequent,  and  domestic  scenes  dealing 
with  indoor  and  outdoor  life  were  before  long  largely  on  the  increase. 
Before  we  pass  to  the  detailed  study  of  the  most  striking  char- 
acteristics of  art  in  Holland  in  the  last  half  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  we  must  examine  at  some  length  the  far-reaching  influence 
and  the  world-famous  achievements  of  Rembrandt,  for  whom  Hals 
may  be  said  to  have  prepared  the  way. 


REMBRANDT 

As  his  name  denotes,  Rembrandt  Harmensz  van  Rijn  (1606-1669) 
was  born  on  the  banks  of  the  Rhine,  his  father  being  a  miller  at 
Leyden.  When  fourteen  years  of  age  he  entered  the  university  of 
his  native  town  and  had  a  classical  education,  which  stood  him  in 
good  stead  through  his  long  and  troubled  career.  Although  he  was 
at  first  placed  as  a  pupil  of  Jacob  van  Swanenburgh,  he  at  an  early 

age    removed    to    Amsterdam.      There    he    worked    under    Pieter 

26 


202  THE  LOUVRE 

Lastman  (1583-1633),  whose  Abraham's  Sajcrifidng  Jacob  (No.  2443a) 
of  1616  is  hung  opposite  the  works  of  his  illustrious  pupil.  The 
independent  spirit  of  Rembrandt  soon  asserted  itself,  and  as  early  as 
1627  he  placed  his  name  on  pictures  which  still  exist,  notably  in  the 
Berlin  and  Stuttgart  museums.  His  earliest  picture  in  the  Louvre 
is  the  Old  Man  Reading  (No.  2541a),  which  is  signed  and  dated  1630, 
and  was  presented  by  M.  Kaempfen,  a  former  Director  of  this 
gallery,  on  his  retirement.  Three  years  later  came  the  two  small 
and  very  similar  versions  (No.  2540  and  No.  2541)  of  the  Philosopher 
in  Meditation,  the  former  of  which  is  signed  and  dated  ;  in  1633 
was  painted  the  Portrait  of  the  Artist  (No.  2552),  while  another  oval 
picture  of  the  same  subject  (No.  2553)  is  inscribed  1634.  In  this 
early  period  the  artist  was  in  the  habit  of  portraying  members 
of  his  own  family,  who  were  naturally  his  most  accessible 
models. 

At  this  moment  of  his  career  Rembrandt  had  to  measure 
himself  with  many  rivals  in  Amsterdam,  notably  with  Thomas 
de  Keyser  (1596  ?-1667),  whose  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  2438a)  was 
formerly  in  the  Rodolphe  Kann  collection,  while  a  half-length 
Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  2438b),  also  by  de  Keyser,  was  formerly  at 
Versailles.  From  the  trammels  and  restrictions  which  the  art  of 
de  Keyser  would  have  been  likely  to  impose  on  a  less  gifted  and 
original  mind,  Rembrandt  readily  set  himself  free ;  and  he  must 
have  had  great  hopes  for  the  future  when,  in  1634,  he  took  to 
wife  the  wealthy  Saskia  van  Uylenborch.  However,  the  oval 
Portrait  of  Himself  wearing  a  black  cap  (No.  2554),  dated  1637,  is 
of  marked  inferiority  to  the  dignified  and  deeply  religious  panel, 
The  Archangel  Raphael  leaving  Tobias  and  his  Father  Tobit 
(No.  2536),  of  the  same  year.  A  year  later  he  must  have  painted 
the  Portrait  of  an  Old  Man  (No.  2544),  and  his  ficrst  pure 
landscape. 

The  influence  of  domestic  bereavements  on  Rembrandt's  art  is 


PLATE    XXIX.— IIEMBEANDT 

(1606-1669) 

DUTCH   SCHOOL 

No.  2539.— THE   PILGRIMS   AT   EMMAUS 
(Les  Pelerins  d'Einniaiis) 

111  a  lofty  room  in  front  of  a  shallow  niche  in  a  wall,  Christ  and  the  two  disciples  sit  at  table ;  a  young 
serviug-nian  enters  from  the  riglit,  carrying  a  dish.  Christ,  whose  bare  feet  are  seen  underneath  the  table, 
gazes  heavenward  as  He  breaks  bread,  by  which  act  the  disciples  recognise  Him  as  their  Lord.  The  room  is 
lit  from  the  left. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

Signed  below  on  the  left : — "  Rembrandt  f.  1648." 

2  ft.  2|  in.  X  2  ft.  1|  in.     (068  x  0-65.) 


u 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  203 

clearly  reflected  in  the  choice  of  his  subjects,  in  their  more  intimate 
setting,  and  in  the  deep  feeling  which  evidently  inspired  them.  No 
better  example  of  this  side  of  his  character  and  his  art  could  be 
found  than  the  Holy  Family  in  the  Carpenter's  Shop  (No.  2542),  which 
he  painted  in  1640.  In  that  year  his  mother  died,  an  event  which 
followed  rapidly  on  the  death  of  his  two  infant  daughters  and  his 
son,  and  his  wife's  frequent  illness.  He,  however,  still  went  on 
painting  such  varied  compositions  as  the  Portrait  of  a  Man 
(No.  2546),  of  1645,  and  the  Woman  Bathing  (No.  2550),  which  he 
achieved  two  years  later. 

The  famous  Night-Watch,  in  the  Amsterdam  Gallery,  testifies 
to  his  inventive  faculty  in  1642,  the  year  in  which  the  death  of  his 
beloved  Saskia  caused  him  intense  grief  From  this  he  never  really 
recovered,  as  we  see  from  the  frequency  with  which  during  the 
remainder  of  his  life  he  painted  pathetic  subjects.  What  artist  in 
the  whole  history  of  painting  has  been  able  to  impart  to  his 
rendering  of  the  Good  Samaritan  the  kindly  solicitude  of  the 
principal  character  in  this  parable,  and  the  feeling  of  complete 
collapse  seen  in  the  body  of  the  wounded  man,  as  Rembrandt  has 
done  in  his  superb  canvas  (No.  2537)  of  1648  in  this  gallery  ?  No 
less  poignant  is  the  grief  depicted  on  the  face  of  the  barefooted 
Man  of  Sorrows  in  the  Christ  and  the  Pilgrims  at  Emmaus  (No.  2539, 
Plate  XXIX.)  of  the  same  year.  Here  we  see  convincing  proof 
of  the  dexterous  use  that  the  Dutch  "magician-painter"  could 
make  of  chiaroscuro,  which  he  has  handled  with  such  masterly 
efi'ect  in  the  Portrait  of  Hendrickje  Stoffels  (No.  2547,  Plate  XXX.). 
All  these  paintings  belong  to  the  same  period  as  the  soul-moving 
Polish  Rider,  which  in  1910  passed  from  the  collection  of  Count 
Tarnowski  at  Dzikow  in  Galicia  into  that  of  Mr.  H.  C.  Frick  in 
New  York  for  £60,000.  The  Portrait  of  a  Man  holding  a  Baton 
(No.  2551),  in  the  La  Caze  collection  in  this  gallery,  was  painted 
three  years  later  than  the  Bathsheha,  or  Woman  Bathing  (No.  2549), 


204  THE  LOUVRE 

of  1654.  The  wonderfully  realistic  and  in  no  way  repellent 
Carcase  of  an  Ox  in  this  gallery  (No.  2548),  like  the  picture  of 
the  same  subject  at  Glasgow,  is  an  achievement  of  a  very 
different  kind,  and  belongs  to  the  year  1655. 

The  Louvre  authorities  have  been  well  advised  in  recent  years 
in  hanging  all  the  pictures  by  Rembrandt  in  this  collection  in  one 
Bay  of  the  Long  Gallery.  Here  now  we  may  study  the  Portrait  of  a 
Young  Man  (No.  2545),  the  wonderful  and  rather  later  Portrait  of  the 
Artist  at  his  Easel  at  the  age  of  Fifty-four  (No.  2555),  and  the  striking 
St.  Matthew  (No.  2538)  of  1661.  Before  these  three  works  were 
painted,  the  great  Dutch  master  had  been  declared  bankrupt,  the 
sale  of  his  most  treasured  possessions  realising  a  ridiculously  small 
sum  in  the  winter  of  1657. 

Although  Rembrandt's  own  standard  of  morality  offended  his 
neighbours,  and  his  relations  with  Hendrickje  Stoffels  seem  to  have 
caused  much  scandal  in  Amsterdam,  we  are  not  concerned  with 
the  morals  of  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  esteemed  of  the  world's 
painters,  but  only  with  his  ceuvre,  a  high  place  in  which  must  be 
accorded  to  the  Portrait  of  Hendrickje  Stoffels  and  her  Child  as 
Venus  and  Cupid  (No.  2543),  which  was  painted  in  1662,  the  year 
that  the  large  Syndics,  now  in  the  Amsterdam  Gallery,  was 
completed. 

He  is  also  to  be  credited  with  the  alternative  version 
of  the  Pilgrims  at  Errvmaus  (No.  2555a),  a  painting  of  the 
same  date,  which  for  many  years  was  at  Compifegne,  where, 
however,  it  passed  only  as  a  school  picture.  This  profoundly 
creative  painter,  who  learnt  as  time  went  on  to  handle  his 
chiaroscuro  with  increased  effect,  was  also  an  etcher  of  the 
highest  order. 

We  may  here  note  that  the  art  of  Jan  Lievens  (1607-1674), 
a  fellow-pupil  with  Rembrandt  under  Pieter  Lastman,  is  seen 
in  the  large  but  far  from  imposing   Visitation  (No.  2444). 


PLATE    XXX.— REMBRANDT 
(1606-1669) 

DUTCH   SCHOOL 

» 

No.  2547.  -PORTRAIT  OF  HENDRICKJE  STOFFELS 
(Portrait  de  Hendrickje  Stoftels) 

She  i.s  seatud,  and  looks  at  tlie  spectator.  Over  her  rich  brown  hair  she  wears  a  grev  cap  with  narrow 
red  ribbons ;  pearl  pendants  arc  in  her  ears,  and  she  wears  a  brooch  on  her  breast.  Life-size  half-length 
figure. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

2  ft.  4}  in.  X  1  ft.  llfin.     (0-72  x  0-60.) 


t.0 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  205 

THE  PUPILS  OF  REMBRANDT 

That  Govaert  Flinck  (1615-1660)  was  a  pupil  of  Rembrandt, 
is  evident  from  his  Announcement  to  the  Shepherds  (No.  2372)  rather 
than  from  his  Portrait  of  a  Young  Lady  (No.  2373),  a  signed  work 
of  1641.  Ferdinand  Bol  (1617-1680)  was  a  pupil  and  imitator 
of  the  great  Dutch  master,  and  his  Portrait  of  a  Mathematician 
(No.  2330)  is  one  of  his  best  paintings ;  but  his  Philosopher  in 
Meditation  (No.  2328)  compares  most  unfavourably  with  Rembrandt's 
two  early  pictures  of  the  same  subject  which  hang  opposite  it. 

The  ineffectual  productions  of  Jan  Victoors  (1620-1670)  include 
the  Portrait  of  a  Young  Lady  (No.  2371),  a  typical  example  of  the 
"  niche  "  portrait  which  became  so  popular,  and  a  large  Isaac  blessing 
Jacob  (No.  2370),  which  vividly  recalls  his  small  canvas  in  the 
Dulwich  College  Gallery  that  in  less  critical  days  passed  as  a 
Rembrandt. 

G.  van  den  Eeckhout  (1621-1674)  in  his  picture  (No.  2364)  shows 
his  dependence  on  Rembrandt ;  and  Cornells  Drost's  repulsive 
Bathsheba  (No.  2359a)  has  no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  ^^fort  bonne 
peiniure"  as  a  French  critic  has  thought  fit  to  term  it. 

VAN  DER  HELST 

Bartholomeus  van  der  Heist  (1612-1670),  a  native  of  Haarlem, 
who  painted  under  the  early  Dutch  master,  Nicholas  Elias,  surnamed 
Pickenoy,  and  subsequently  worked  at  Amsterdam,  has  fully  signed 
his  Shooting  Prize  (No.  2394,  Plate  XXXI.),  which  is  dated  1653.  It 
has  been  regarded  as  a  replica  on  a  very  reduced  scale  of  The  Oncers 
of  the  Brotherhood  of  St.  Sebastian  at  Amsterdam,  in  the  Amsterdam 
Gallery,  which,  curiously  enough,  bears  the  date  1657,  and  is  also 
signed  on  a  slate. 

Pieter  van   der  Faes,  who  is  better  known  as  Sir  Peter  Lely 


206  THE  LOUVRE 

(1618-1680),  after  painting  at  Haarlem  in  the  school  of  Pieter  de 
Grebber,  went  to  England  in  1641.  He  there  succeeded  Van  Dyck 
as  Court  painter,  and  at  the  Restoration  became  the  favourite 
Royal  painter.  The  affectation  and  mannerism  of  his  Windsor 
Beauties,  now  at  Hampton  Court,  is  well  known.  He  had  a  certain 
facility  in  painting 

"The  sleepy  eye  that  spoke  the  melting  souL" 

Three  pictures  (Nos.  2367-2369)  are  placed  to  his  credit  here, 
but 

"  The  bugle  eyeball  and  the  cheek  of  cream  " 

have  done  their  magic  now. 

The  name  of  H.  van  Vliet  (1611  ?-1675)  is,  doubtless,  correctly 
connected  with  two  portraits  on  canvas  (Nos.  2605  and  2605a),  while 
his  contemporaries,  Cornells  Saftleven  (1606-1681)  and  D.  van 
Santvoort  (1610-1680),  are  represented  by  The  Artist's  Portrait 
(No.  2562)  and  the  Pilgrims  at  Emmaits  (No.  2564)  respectively. 
Jakob  van  Loo  (1614r-1670),  who  became  a  naturalised  Frenchman, 
may  be  judged  by  his  diploma  picture  (No.  2451)  and  a  very  poor 
Nude  Female  (No.  2452). 

Such  mediocre  producers  of  uninspired  and  unconvincing  panels 
as  Dirk  Hals  (1591-1656),  the  brother  and  pupil  of  Frans  Hals, 
whose  Festive  Repast  (No.  2389)  hangs  in  Room  XXIII. ;  Cornells 
van  Poelenburg  (1586-1667),  whose  art  is  here  admirably  illustrated 
(Nos.  2518-2523);  Hendrick  Pot  (1585-1657),  who  evidently 
derived  some  satisfaction  from  the  elaborate  inscription  he  has 
placed  on  his  quite  ineffectual,  but  fortunately  diminutive,  Portrait 
of  Charles  I.  (No.  2525) ;  and  the  little-known  and  less-esteemed 
L.  F.  Zustris  (1526-1600),  whose  absurd  Venus  and  Love  (No.  2640) 
shows  what  a  waste  of  time  it  was  for  him  to  study  under  Titian 
in  Italy — these  and  many  more  worked  as  "business  artists"  for 
undiscriminating   patrons.     In   the   same   category   come   Adriaen 


PLATE    XXXI.— VAN    DER    HELST 

(1613-1670) 
DUTCH   SCHOOL 

No.  2394.— THE   SHOOTING    PRIZE 
(Les  Chefs  de  la  Gilde  des  aibaletriers) 

Tlie  four  officers  of  the  Brotherhood  of  St.  Seba-stian  at  Aiiisterdaiu  are  seated  at  a  table  in  the  fure- 
groimd,  with  the  insignia  of  the  Brotlierhood  di.^jilayed  before  them.  By  the  side  of  the  officer  who,  seated 
to  the  right,  is  addressing  his  companions,  is  a  slate  on  whicli  are  inscribed  their  names.  In  tlie  background 
to  the  right  are  three  young  men  with  bows  and  arrows.  From  tlie  left  enters  a  maid-servant  with  a 
drinking-horn. 

Signed  on  the  slate  : — "  bartholomeus  van  deh  helst  fecit,  1653." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas  afBxed  to  panel. 

1  ft.  7j  in.  X  2  ft.  2 J  in.     (0-50  x  0-67.) 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  207 

van  de  Venne  (No.  2601),  Pieter  Codde  (No.  2339a),  Jacob  Duck 
(No.  2360-2361),  and  A,  Palamedesz  (No.  2515a). 


GENRE  PAINTERS 

This  rough  sketch  must  suffice  for  our  study  of  the  History 
and  Portrait  Painters  of  Holland.  Although,  of  course,  portraiture 
played  a  most  important  part  throughout  the  whole  range  of 
Dutch  art,  we  must  now  deal  with  those  of  their  contemporaries 
and  successors  who  are  classed  as  painters  of  genre  subjects, 
Interiors,  Conversation-pieces,  and  Rustic  Scenes.  The  compositions 
of  these  men  at  first  show  high  technical  excellence,  and  a  refined 
feeling  for  light  and  shade ;  they  depict  simple  scenes  and  homely 
incidents  which  make  a  wide  appeal  in  any  age.  By  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  century  their  scenes  become  festive,  and  eventually 
boisterous,  and  so  degenerate  into  unimaginative  renderings  of 
far-fetched  incidents  which  are  treated  with  a  parade  of  mere 
imitative  skill.  In  the  last  phase  of  their  art  the  subjects  become 
even  more  uninviting,  the  panels  are  smoothly  painted,  and  all 
originality  disappears. 


ADRIAEN  VAN  OSTADE 

Adriaen  van  Ostade  (1610-1685),  as  a  pupil  of  Frans  Hals  at 
Haarlem,  occupies  an  important  position  in  his  school.  He  is  seen 
to  very  great  advantage  at  the  Louvre.  From  his  early  Intericyr  of 
a  Cabaret  (No.  2506),  which  is  signed  on  a  form 

"a.    v.    ostade  1641," 

we  see  the  direction  his  hfe's  work  was  to  take ;  and  his  Interior 
of  a  Cottage  (No.  2498)  of  the  following  year,  strengthens  that 
view.     Although  Reading  the  Gazette  (No.  2505),  of  1653,  is  painted 


208  THE  LOUVRE 

on  a  very  small  panel,  it  heightens  our  appreciation  of  this  able 
and  careful  painter,  who,  a  year  later,  must  have  spent  a  long  time 
in  the  completion  of  a  Family  Group,  which  traditionally  passes  as 
the  Family  of  the  Artist  (No.  2495).  The  Toper  (No.  2401),  of  1668, 
and  the  intensely  realistic  8mA)ker  (No.  2500),  are  highly  charac- 
teristic, while  the  Schoolmaster  (No.  2496)  shows  great  observation. 
The  Fish  Market  (No.  2497),  the  Business  Man  in  his  Study  (No.  2499), 
the  Man  Drinking  (No.  2502),  the  Man  Reading  (No.  2503),  the 
Reading  (No.  2504),  and  the  Interior  of  a  School  (No.  2507),  are 
both  in  subject  and  handling  good  examples  of  his  methods,  which 
were  affected  by  a  study  of  Adriaen  Brouwer  and  Rembrandt. 

Adriaen  van  Ostade  was  the  elder  brother  and  the  master  of 
Isack  van  Ostade  (1621-1649),  who  is  equally  well  represented  at 
the  Louvre.  Although  he  painted  two  Interiors  (Nos.  2512  and 
2514),  a  Toit  a  pwcs  (No.  2513),  a  Halt  (No.  2509),  and  an  over- 
crowded Travellers  Halting  (No.  2508),  his  best  works,  here  as 
elsewhere,  represent  landscapes  and  frozen  river  scenes. 

Adriaen  van  Ostade  had  also  as  pupils  Cornells  Bega  (1620- 
1664),  by  whom  the  Louvre  possesses  a  very  late  Rustic  Interior 
(No.  2312),  of  1662  ;  and  H.  M.  Sorgh,  called  Rokes  (1611  ?-1670), 
three  of  whose  panels  (Nos.  2571-2573)  are  exhibited. 


GERARD  DOU 

Gerard  Dou  (1613-1675)  was  in  his  day  a  highly  popular  and 
prosperous  painter  of  petty  tragedies.  As  a  boy  of  fifteen  he 
entered  the  studio  of  "  the  skilled  and  far-famed  Mr.  Rembrandt," 
who  was,  however,  his  senior  by  only  seven  years.  One  is  apt  to 
tire  of  his  irritating  parade  of  cleverness  in  the  manipulation  of 
light  and  shade  effects,  and  over-scrupulous  and  niggling  treatment 
of  detail.  Yet  it  is  these  very  qualities  that  brought  him  financial 
success  when  in  later  life  Rembrandt  was  receiving  scanty  treat- 


PLATE    XXXII.— GERAED  DOU 

(1613-1675) 

DUTCH   SCHOOL 

No.  2348.— THE   DROPSICAL   WOMAN 
(La  Feinine  Hydropique) 

In  a  well-appointed  room,  lighted  by  an  arched  window  on  the  left,  an  old  woman  is  seated  in  an 
arm-chair.  The  sick  woman,  who  raises  her  eyes  to  lieaven  and  is  taking  a  spoonful  of  medicine  from  a 
young  woman,  gives  her  right  hand  to  a  girl  who  kneels  on  the  left  by  her  side.  Towards  the  right  stands 
the  doctor,  who  holds  up  to  the  light  a  glass  full  of  liquid.  A  chandelier  hangs  in  the  centre,  and  on  the 
right  are  a  large  tapestry  curtain  and  a  wine-cooler. 

Signed  on  the  edge  of  the  book  placed  on  the  reading-desk  in  the  left  foreground  : — 

"1663.     a.  Dov.  ovT.  65  jaer." 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

2  ft.  8|  in.  X  2  ft.  2^  in.     (0-83  x  0-67.) 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  209 

ment  at  the  hands  of  the  art  patrons  of  Holland.  The  Dentist 
(No.  2355)  is  an  early  work.  Don's  Portrait  of  an  Old  Lady  (No. 
2358)  is  now  held  to  be  a  Portrait  of  Rembrandt's  Mother,  and  is 
regarded  as  the  companion  picture  to  the  Old  Man  Reading  (No. 
2567),  by  Don's  pupil,  Godfried  Schalcken.  The  Grocer's  Shop 
(No.  2350),  which  has  been,  with  needless  precision,  "ranked  about 
the  seventh  best  of  this  master's  productions,"  is  signed  in  full  on 
the  slate,  and  dated  1647  on  the  mortar,  while  the  Cook  with  a 
Bead  Cock  (No.  2353)  is  signed  on  the  window-sill,  and  dated  1650. 
The  Trumpeter  (No.  2351)  is  perhaps  the  pendant  to  the  Girl  at 
a  Window,  of  1657,  now  in  the  Rothschild  collection  at  Waddesdon 
Manor.  On  the  window-ledge  in  the  Trumpeter  we  see  the  same 
silver  flagon  and  a  dish  that  also  appear  in  the  Dropsical  Woman 
(No.  2348,  Plate  XXXII.),  a  world-famous,  but  not  on  that  account 
a  great,  picture.     It  bears  a  somewhat  enigmatical  inscription : 

"1663.    G.    DOV.    OVT.    65    JAEr" 

on  the  edge  of  the  book  placed  on  the  reading-desk.  Dou  in  1663, 
the  year  here  given,  was  only  fifty  years  of  age,  and  the  statement  of 
age  in  the  second  half  of  the  inscription  may  be  a  later  addition, 
or  capable  of  another  interpretation.  The  light  comes  in  from 
the  window  on  the  left.  The  woman  who  is  dying  of  dropsy  is 
receiving  a  dose  of  medicine,  while  her  daughter  in  grief  kneels  and 
kisses  her  hand,  and  the  doctor  holds  up  to  the  light  the  vial,  the 
contents  of  which  he  is  carefully  examining.  The  artist  in  this  his 
largest  picture  is  at  much  pains  to  show  the  dexterity  with  which 
he  can  paint  the  fabric  of  the  dresses,  the  large  tapestry  hanging  in 
folds  on  the  right,  and  the  reflection  of  light  on  the  chandelier. 
This  panel,  which  is  Don's  masterpiece  and  is  in  an  excellent  state 
of  preservation,  was  originally  contained  in  an  ebony  case,  the 
outside  of  which  (in  two  pieces)  was  formerly  the  still-life  painting 
of  a  /Silver  Ewer  and  Dish  (No.  2349). 

27 


210  THE  LOUVRE 

The  Man  weighing  Gold  (No.  2354)  is  signed  in  full,  and  dated 
1664 ;  elaborate  care  and  much  time  have  been  expended,  if  not 
wasted,  on  every  wrinkle  in  his  face,  and  every  hair  in  his  white 
beard.  It  has  points  of  analogy  with  Quentin  Matsys's  Banker 
and  his  Wife  (No.  2029),  which  was  painted  in  Flanders  nearly  a 
century  and  a  half  earlier.  Dou's  meticulous  art  is  also  exemplified 
in  the  Old  Man  Reading  (No.  2357),  Reading  the  Bible  (No.  2356), 
the  Dutch  Cook  (No.  2352),  and  the  highly  characteristic  but 
quite  negligible  Portrait  of  the  Painter  (No.  2359).  In  many 
respects  this  type  of  picture  warns  us  that  within  a  few  years  of 
Dou's  death,  in  1675,  the  art  of  Holland  passed  into  decadence. 


DOU'S  PUPILS 

He  had  several  pupils.  Of  these  Quiryn  van  Brekelenkam 
(1620  ?-l  668)  holds  a  respectable  place  among  the  Small 
Masters  of  Holland,  as  we  see  from  his  Consultation  (No.  2337) 
in  this  collection  rather  than  from  his  Monk  Writing  (No.  2338). 
Herman  van  Swanevelt  (1620-1655),  who  from  his  journeys  south 
earned  the  name  of  Herman  of  Italy,  gives  us  three  Landscapes  (Nos. 
2584r-2586).  Karel  de  Moor  (1656-1738),  a  native  of  Leyden,  who 
has  signed  his  Dutch  Family  (No.  2477),  worked  imder  both  Dou  and 
Frans  van  Mieris  the  Elder  (1635-1681).  The  latter  owes  much  of 
his  technique  and  meticulous  work  to  Dou,  as  is  revealed  by  a  hasty 
inspection  of  his  Tea  Party  (No.  2471),  with  two  over-dressed  women 
taking  tea,  and  three  other  panels  (Nos.  2469,  2470,  and  2472).  Ary 
de  Vois  (1632-1680)  was  a  pupil  of  the  German  painter  N.  Knupfer 
and  of  his  own  countryman  Abraham  van  den  Tempel  (1622-1672), 
who  is  here  represented  by  a  Portrait  of  a  Lady  with  an  Apple 
(No.  2586a)  ;  but  he  also  came  under  the  influence  of  the  painter  of 
the  Dropskal  Woman  (Plate  XXXII.),  as  is  testified  by  his  small 
interior  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  2606),  his  PoHrait  of  a  Painter  at  his 


PLATE    XXXIII.— TEIIBOKCH 

(1617-1681) 

DUTCH   SCHOOL 

No.  2589.— THE  CONCERT 
(Le  Concert) 

A  young  lady  in  wliite  satin  dress  and  jellow  bodice  is  seated  in  the  centre  before  a  table  covered  with 
a  richly  coloured  tablecloth.  She  is  singing  to  the  accompanimeut  of  a  lady  in  the  left  background  ;  a  page- 
boy enters  from  the  right. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

1  ft.  6f  in.  X  1  ft.  5  in.     (0-47  x  0-43.) 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  211 

Easel  (No.  2607),  and  his  feeble  Woman  cutting  a  Lemon  (No.  2608). 
Traces  of  Dou's  art  are  seen  in  J.  A.  van  Staveren's  (1624?-1668> 
Philosopher  in  his  Study  (No.  2577) ;  but  P.  C.  van  Slingelandt  (1640- 
1691)  was  a  direct  pupil.  His  Dutch  Family  (No.  2568)  is  said  to 
have  been  bought  by  Louis  xvi.  from  an  English  brewer,  and  the 
Pwtrait  of  a  Man  (No.  2569)  and  Kitchen  Utensils  (No.  2570)  have 
long  been  in  the  collection.  The  Magdalene  (No.  2570a)  and  St. 
Jerome  (No.  2570b)  were  bequeathed  to  the  Louvre. 


GERARD  TERBORCH 

Gerard  Terborch  (1617-1681)  was  the  creator  of  the  "Conversa- 
tion-piece," and  one  of  the  earliest  to  portray  the  well  born  engaged 
in  music  lessons  and  similar  occupations  ;  he  was  one  of  the  greatest 
of  the  Dutch  "  small-masters,"  and  in  every  way  the  superior  of  the 
uninspired  Dou.  Terborch  invites  us  to  join  him  in  the  fine  decorum 
of  a  noble  chamber  where  the  appointments  are  carefully  tended, 
while  its  occupants  give  themselves  up  to  cultured,  if  not  perhaps 
deeply  intellectual,  pursuits.  We  forget  all  about  the  carousing  and 
bestial  profligates  who  people  the  taverns  of  Jan  Steen  and  much 
less  accomplished  painters,  and  watch  the  refined  fingers  stray  over 
the  keyboard  of  the  open  spinet  or  sweep  the  strings  of  a  well- 
made  mandoline,  as  in  the  Concert  (No.  2589,  Plate  XXXIII.). 
Equally  fine  are  the  two  Mttsic  Lessons  (No,  2588  and  No.  2591),  the 
former  being  signed  and  dated  1660. 

The  Military  Galant  (No.  2587)  exhibits  Terborch's  dexterity  in 
the  rendering  of  reflected  light  on  a  red  tablecloth,  although  the 
subject  has  an  innuendo  which  hardly  adds  to  its  charm.  The 
Ecclesiastical  Assembly  (No.  2590)  is  only  a  small  sketch  on  panel,  and 
affords  but  a  feeble  echo  of  this  painter's  masterpiece,  the  Ratification 
of  the  Peace  of  Miinster,  in  the  National  Gallery.  Terborch  was  a  pupil 
of  his  father,  who  had  visited  Italy,  and  he  studied  also  under  Pieter 


212  THE  LOUVRE 

Molyn  the  Elder  at  Haarlem  previous  to  visiting  England  in 
1635.  He  travelled  much  more  extensively  than  most  of  his 
contemporaries,  and  went  to  Spain  during  the  best  period  of 
art  in  the  Peninsula.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  been  de- 
pendent on  his  professional  success  for  his  living,  which  was 
passed  in  easy  circumstances.  Nor  did  he  busy  himself  as  a 
teacher,  his  only  direct  pupil  being  Caspar  Netscher  (1639-1684), 
who  gives  us  a  Music  Lesson  (No.  2486),  of  the  approved  stamp, 
and  a  Violoncello  Lesson  (No.  2487). 

JAN  STEEN 

It  is  not  known  for  certain  whether  Jan  Steen  (1626?-1679) 
was  a  pupil  of  Nicholaes  Knupfer,  a  native  of  Leipzig  who  resided 
for  a  time  at  Leyden,  but  he  certainly  worked  under  Adriaen  van 
Ostade  at  Haarlem,  and  later  became  a  pupil  of  Jan  van  Goyen, 
whose  daughter  Margaretha  he  married  as  his  first  wife.  Steen 
certainly  leased  a  brewery  in  Delft  for  six  years,  and  he  is 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  archives  of  that  town  about  1656  ;  he 
subsequently  kept  a  tavern  in  the  Langebrug  in  Leyden  in  1672. 
His  art  is  vivacious  if  not  boisterous,  and  the  strength  and 
versatility  he  displayed  in  the  nine  hundred  pictures  with  which 
he  is  justly  credited  give  him  a  high  place  among  the  artists  of 
Holland  in  the  seventeenth  century.  The  frequency  with  which  he 
painted  the  Interior  of  a  Tavern  (No.  2578)  has  suggested  that  he 
carried  on  the  tradition  of  the  Flemish-Dutch  roysterer  Adriaen 
Brouwer ;  but  such  scenes,  magnificently  as  they  are  handled,  are 
apt  to  become  boring  in  time.  This  large  canvas  is  dated  1674, 
and  the  coat  of  arms  of  Charles  v.  is  fastened  on  to  the  balcony 
in  which  are  spectators.  The  Merry  Company  at  Table  (No.  2579) 
is  somewhat  sketchy  in  parts,  but  the  lighting  is  well  regulated, 
and  the   canvas  is  signed  in  full  on  the  back  of  a  blue-covered 


PLATE    XXXIV.— JAN    STEEN 

(1626  ?-1679) 

DUTCH   SCHOOL 

No.  2680.— BAD  COMPANY 

(La  Mauvaise  corapagnie) 

The  scene  takes  place  in  a  tavern.  A  young  man  has  fallen  asleep  with  his  head  in  the  lap  of  a  girl,  who 
is  seated  to  the  right  of  the  composition,  and  holds  a  glass  of  wine  in  her  right  hand.  Another  girl  has  just 
taken  the  young  man's  watch  from  his  pocket  and  is  giving  it  to  an  old  woman,  who  receives  it  with  evident 
glee.     On  the  left  a  man  sits  at  a  table  smoking  his  pipe,  and  another  is  playing  the  fiddle. 

Signed  in  full  in  the  left  bottom  corner. 

Painted  in  oil  on  panel. 

1  ft.  6|  in.  X  1  ft.  2i  in.     (0-47  X  0-36.) 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  213 

chair  to  the  right.  That  the  Bad  Company  (No.  2580,  Plate 
XXXIV.)  is  admirably  painted  will  be  conceded  by  all,  but 
refinement  is  not  its  distinguishing  feature.  A  young  man 
dressed  in  a  red  jacket  is  sleeping  with  his  head  on  the  lap  of  a 
girl,  while  another  girl  is  relieving  him  of  his  watch.  The  scene 
is  laid  in  a  tavern,  on  the  floor  of  which  are  painted  with 
wonderful  precision  a  number  of  tiny  objects.  It  was  not 
Steen's  habit  to  paint  representations  of  cultured  society  such 
as  Terborch  delighted  in. 


PIETER  DE  HOOCH 

The  Louvre  contains  only  two  paintings  by  Pieter  de  Hooch, 
who  was  born  in  1629  at  Rotterdam,  a  town  which  played  a  rela- 
tively unimportant  part  in  Dutch  painting.  He  also  lived  at  Delft 
and  Leyden.  The  Interior  of  a  Dutch  House,  mth  a  Woman  preparing 
Vegetables  (No.  2414),  is  a  good  example,  and  is  fully  signed  in  the 
bottom  left-hand  corner.  The  Butch  Interior,  mth  a  Lady  playing 
Cards  (No.  2415,  Plate  XXXV.),  is  fuU  of  incidents,  contains  six 
figures,  and  is  signed  on  the  base  of  one  of  the  columns  supporting 
the  mantelpiece  in  the  left  foreground.  No  museum  in  the  world 
exhibits  the  art  of  Pieter  de  Hooch  in  such  excellence  as  does  the 
National  Gallery,  which  contains  three  masterpieces  from  his 
hands  that  have  indirectly  been  the  cause  of  assessing  the  whole 
of  the  artist's  life-work  on  too  generous  a  basis.  It  is  in- 
disputable that  during  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life,  of  which 
nothing  is  known  later  than  the  signature  and  date,  1677,  on  the 
Music  Party  in  the  collection  of  Baron  H.  A.  Steengracht  at  The 
Hague,  his  art  deteriorated  very  considerably  both  in  colouring 
and  draughtsmanship.  He  may  well  have  been  a  pupil  of  Karel 
Fabritius  (1624^1654),  but  it  is  almost  incredible  that  he  can  have 
been  a  pupil  of  the  Italianiser  Nicholaes  Berchem,  as  Houbraken 


214  THE  LOUVRE 

ventured  to  assert.  This  museum  contains  nothing  by  Ochtervelt, 
many  of  whose  pictures  have  from  time  to  time  been  accepted  as 
the  work  of  Pieter  de  Hooch. 

From  the  shortlived  artist  Karel  Fabritius  derives  the 
almost  incomparable  master  Jan  Vermeer  van  Delft  (1642-1675), 
whose  fifty  authentic  pictures  are  to-day  among  those  most  coveted 
by  collectors.  As  a  painter  skilled  in  the  technicalities  of  his  pro- 
fession Vermeer  must  be  accorded  the  highest  rank.  The  subtle 
and  mysterious  handling  of  his  Lace  Maker  (No.  2456,  Plate 
XXXVI.),  with  its  cool  colour  scheme  and  dominant  tones  of  blue 
and  lemon-yellow,  make  it  diflSicult  for  us  to  realise  that  untU 
twenty  years  ago  his  works  were  neglected.  Indeed,  this  small 
canvas  was  acquired  in  1870  at  the  Vis  Blokhuyzen  sale  for  the 
ridiculous  sum  of  £290.  Jan  Vermeer  (or  Van  der  Meer)  van  Delft  is 
not  to  be  confused  with  Jan  Van  der  Meer  of  Haarlem  (1628-1691), 
who  is  included  in  the  official  catalogue  as  the  painter  of  the 
Oviside  of  an  Inn  (No.  2455,  marked  No.  2022  on  the  frame).  It 
is  fully  signed,  and  bears  the  date  1652. 


NICOLAS  MAES 

One  of  the  last  lingering  influences  of  Rembrandt  is  seen  in 
the  art  of  Nicolas  Maes  (1632-1693).  The  genre  pictures  of 
his  early  period  are  so  vastly  superior  to  his  later  portraits 
that  it  was  formerly  assumed  that  there  might  well  have  been 
two  artists  of  the  same  name.  He  certainly  delighted  in 
painting  several  versions,  which  vary  considerably  in  size, 
of  Grace  before  Meat  (No.  2454).  In  his  pictures  we  see  the 
mind  that  broods,  and  women  who  meditate  rather  than  act. 
The  best  examples  of  his  domestic  scenes  are  finely  graduated, 
although  the  sadness  of  advancing  age  becomes  monotonous 
in  time. 


PLATE    XXXV.— PIETER    DE    HOOCH 

(1629-1677  1) 

DUTCH   SCHOOL 

No.  2415.-DUTOH   INTERIOR   WITH   A   LADY    PLAYING   CARDS 
(Interieur  liollandais) 

By  the  fireplace  to  the  left  a  lady  is  seated.  She  is  playing  cards  with  a  gentleman,  and  shows  her  hand 
to  a  cavalier  who  stands  l)eside  her.  In  the  background  stand  two  lovers,  and  a  boy  is  entering  the  room, 
a  richly  appointed  room,  hung  with  gilt  leather. 

Signed  on  the  base  of  one  of  the  columns  supporting  the  mantelpiece  : — "  p.  d.  hooch." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

2  ft.  2i  in   X  2  ft.  6i  in.     (0-67  x  0-77.) 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  215 


GABRIEL  METSU 


A  high  place  among  the  painters  of  "Conversation-pieces" 
must  be  accorded  to  Gabriel  Metsu  (1630  ?-l 667),  a  shortlived 
artist  who  was  born  at  Leyden  and  learnt  the  first  principles  of 
his  art  from  Don.  As  early  as  1644  he  seems  to  have  earned 
some  reputation  as  a  painter,  his  signature  appearing  on  his 
C(mrt  Physician  in  that  year.  He  came  under  the  influence  of 
Rembrandt,  and  in  later  life  practised  as  a  painter  at  Amsterdam, 
where  he  died. 

Metsu,  whose  work  is  at  first  sight  not  easily  distinguishable 
from  Terborch's,  acquired  a  facility  in  the  control  of  the  expression 
and  the  ever-varying  gesture  of  the  hands  in  his  pictures,  that  was 
denied  to  many  of  his  contemporaries.  Instances  of  this  are  the 
figure  of  the  Christ  writing  a  long  Latin  inscription  on  the  ground 
in  the  Woman  token  in  Adultery  (No.  2457),  the  ease  with  which 
the  young  lady  in  a  white  satin  dress  runs  her  fingers  over  the 
keys  of  the  spinet  in  the  Music  Lesson  (No.  2460),  and  the 
treatment  of  the  Dutch  Lady  (No.  2462),  who  holds  a  jug  in  her 
right  hand.  The  last-named  panel  is  evidently  the  companion  to 
the  very  thinly  painted  Dutch  Cook  peeling  Apples  (No.  2463), 
which  is  signed  "g.  metsu."  Perhaps  his  best  outdoor  scene 
of  humble  life  is  the  Vegetable  Market  at  Amsterdam  (No.  2458), 
although  his  handling  of  the  trees  suggests  that  his  forte  was 
the  Conversation-piece  of  Dutch  tradition,  and  that  he  would 
not  have  risen  to  high  rank  as  a  landscape  painter.  The 
placing  of  the  signature  on  a  letter,  which  in  this  instance  lies 
on  the  ground,  is  a  favourite  device  with  Metsu.  He  has  derived 
much  pleasure  from  the  treatment  of  the  textures  of  the 
tablecloth,  the  curtain,  and  the  chair  in  the  Offi^c&r  visiting  a  Lady 
(No.  2459).  The  Alchemist  (No.  2461)  may  be  the  companion 
picture  to  the  Sportsman  in  the   Gallery  at   The   Hague.     Much 


216  THE  LOUVRE 

speculative  criticism  has  been  indulged  in  by  critics  as  to  whether 
the  so-called  Portrait  of  Admiral  Cornelis  Tromp  (No.  2464) 
represents  that  admiral,  and  some  doubt  has  also  been  cast  on 
its  attribution  to  Metsu 


LANDSCAPE   PAINTERS 

The  naturalistic  treatment  of  the  landscape  background  in  the 
religious  pictures  of  Jan  van  Eyck  and  his  successors,  Memlinc, 
Bouts,  Hugo  van  der  Goes,  and  other  painters  in  the  Netherlands, 
in  time  brought  about  the  promotion  of  landscape  painting  to  an 
independent  art.  Among  the  earlier  Dutch  artists  who  approached 
the  study  of  Nature  were  Arent  Arentzen  (1586  ?-1635  ?),  as  we 
see  from  his  Landscape  with  a  Fisherman  (No.  2300a),  and  Roeland 
Roghman,  who  was  born  a  year  later  than  Jan  van  Goyen,  and  lived 
as  late  as  1685.  He  painted  the  Landscape  (No.  2555b),  which  was 
formerly  in  the  Paul  Mantz  collection.  Indeed,  several  Dutchmen 
of  the  period  sought  to  commit  to  panel  views  of  nature,  as  in  the 
case  of  Pieter  de  Bloot  (1600-1652),  who  gives  us  a  Landscape  with 
a  River  (No.  2327b). 

The  romantic  feeling  which  so  often  pervades  the  background 
of  Rembrandt's  paintings,  and  is  so  apparent  in  such  etchings  as  the 
Three  Trees,  can  only  be  touched  on  here.  This  new  tendency  is  best 
exemplified  in  the  works  of  Jan  van  Goyen  (1596-1656),  who  may 
be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  a  self-centred  school  of  landscape 
painting  in  Holland ;  but  it  was  his  ever  handy  sketch-book  that 
enabled  him  to  outstrip  his  rivals  in  this  branch  of  Dutch  art.  He 
is  seen  to  great  advantage  in  his  very  fine  Banks  of  a  Butch  River 
(No.  2375),  his  superb  River  View  with  eight  Men  in  a  Boat  (No.  2378), 
a  signed  and  dated  work  of  1649,  a  large  light-brown- toned  River  in 
Holland  (No.  2377),  a  good  BanTts  of  a  Canal  (No.  2379),  as  well  as  a 
Dutch  Canal  (No.  2376)  and  a  Dutch  River  (No.  2377). 


PLATE    XXXVI.— JAN    VER    MEEE  VAN  DELFT 

(1632-1675) 

DUTCH   SCHOOL 

No.  2456.— THE   LACE   MAKER 
(La  Dentelliere) 

A  girl,  wearing  a  yellow  bodice  and  a  lilue  skirt,  is  seated  behind  a  table.  She  is  bending  her  head  over 
a  light-blue  lace  pillow  as  she  adjusts  the  bobbins  with  both  hands.  A.  dark-bine  cushion  and  a  book  are  on 
tlie  table  to  the  left. 

Signed  in  the  upper  right-hand  corner  : — "J.  v.  Meer,"  the  first  three  letters  being  intertwined. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas 

9J  in.  (0'24)  square. 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  217 

Aert  van  der  Neer  (1603-1677)  painted  with  strong  contrasts 
of  light,  as  in  his  Banks  of  a  Dutch  Canal  (No.  2483) ;  and  his 
monogram  is  to  be  found  on  the  seat  at  the  foot  of  a  tree  in  his 
Diitch  Village  (No.  2484),  where  his  propensity  for  painting  moon- 
light scenes  is  well  illustrated.  Herman  Saftleven's  (1609-1685) 
Banks  of  the  Rhine  (No.  2563) ;  Jan  Asselyn's  View  of  the  Lameniano 
Bridge  on  the  T ever  one  (No.  2301),  Landscape  (No.  2302),  and  Ruins  in 
the  Roman  Campagna  (No.  2303) ;  and  the  two  Landscapes  (Nos.  2332 
and  2333)  by  Jan  Both  (1610-1652),  who  worked  in  Rome  and 
painted  Italian  landscapes  under  the  influence  of  the  French  artist 
Claude  Lorrain,  show  the  gradual  introduction  of  foreign  influences. 
Joris  van  der  Hagen  (died  1669)  takes  a  new  line  in  the  repre- 
sentation of  a  very  low  horizon  in  his  Environs  de  Haarlem  (No. 
2382) ;  but  his  Landscape  with  Peasants  crossing  a  Ford  (No.  2381) 
is  dull  in  tone  and  composed  of  unrelated  parts. 

The  Banks  of  a  River  (No.  2561d)  is  a  superb  example  of  the  art 
of  Salomon  van  Ruysdael  (1600  ?-l  670),  one  of  the  founders  of  the 
Haarlem  school  of  landscape,  and  the  uncle  of  Jacob  van  Ruisdael. 
The  Large  Tower  (No.  2561c)  gives  a  better  idea  of  his  power  than 
the  Ford  (No.  2561b).  Another  painter  in  the  same  school,  Cornells 
Decker  (1618  ?-1678),  has  a  Landscape  (No.  2346).  Although  Isack 
van  Ostade  at  times  gave  himself  up  to  trivial  subjects,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  the  merit  of  his  frozen  river  scenes  (Nos.  2510,  2511, 
2515)  is  firmly  established,  and  the  happy  way  in  which  he  combined 
a  genuine  appreciation  of  nature  with  great  skill  in  the  placing  and 
treatment  of  his  figures  has  earned  for  him  a  high  place  among  the 
Dutch  landscape  painters. 


AELBERT  CUYP 

Unlike  most  of  the  artists  of  his  time  in  Holland,  Aelbert  Cuyp 

(1620-1691)  was  highly  esteemed  by  his  contemporaries,  his  social 
28 


218  THE  LOUVRE 

position  and  his  good  fortune  in  money  matters  freeing  him  from  the 
poverty  which  Hobbema  and  others  endured.  He  painted  portraits 
with  much  skill,  as  we  see  from  his  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  2345a) 
and  his  Portrait  of  a  Boy  and  a  Girl  with  a  Goat  (No.  2344) ;  but  he 
is  best  known  as  a  cattle  painter,  his  sturdy  cattle  being  artistically 
grouped  in  thick  green  pastures  flooded  with  sunshine,  as  in  his 
Herdsman  with  Cattle  (No.  2341).  He  attained  much  success  also 
with  his  riding  pictures,  and  the  Starting  for  the  Ride  (No.  2342)  and 
the  Riding  Party  (No.  2343)  are  in  every  way  preferable  to  his  Boats 
on  a  Rough  Sea  (No.  2345).  Following  his  usual  habit,  he  has  placed 
no  date  on  any  of  these  six  pictures.  He  had  no  pupil  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term ;  but  a  host  of  imitators,  such  as  Jacob  van 
Stry  and  the  much  later  English  Royal  Academician  Sidney 
Cooper,  failed  ignominiously  in  their  feeble  attempts  to  copy  his 
methods. 

Jan  Wynants  was  another  landscape  painter  in  the  Haarlem 
School,  although  he  settled  in  Amsterdam  and  died  there  in  1682. 
His  Oviskirts  of  a  Forest  (No.  2636)  is  signed  and  dated  1668,  and  is 
superior  to  the  Landscape  (No.  2637)  which  bears  his  own  signature 
as  well  as  that  of  Adriaen  van  de  Velde,  who  on  numerous  occasions 
inserted  the  figures  for  him.  Wynants  has  also  placed  his  name 
on  a  small  Landscape  with  Sportsman  and  Falconer  (No.  2638). 

Adriaen  van  de  Velde  has  been  careful  to  sign  and  date  each 
of  the  seven  pictures  by  which  he  is  represented  (Nos.  2593-2599). 
By  Allart  van  Everdingen  (1621-1675),  who  travelled  in  Norway 
and  painted  rocky  scenes  and  waterfalls,  we  find  two  Landscapes 
(Nos.  2365  and  2366). 

JACOB  VAN   RUISDAEL 

The  greatest  of  all  Dutch  landscape  painters,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  Jan  van  Goyen,  is  Jacob  van  Ruisdael  (1628  ?-1682), 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  219 

who  occupied  himself  more  especially  with  rushing  waterfalls  and 
undulating  country.  His  Storm  on  the  Coast  (No.  2558)  is  a  fine 
achievement,  but  his  best  picture  in  this  collection  is  the 
Landscape  (no  No.),  which  was  bequeathed  by  Baron  Arthur  de 
Rothschild.  His  Woody  Landscape  (No.  2559),  the  Road  (No. 
2559a),  Landscape  (No.  2561),  and  the  Entrance  to  a  Wood  (No. 
2561a),  cannot,  however,  compare  with  his  Sunny  Landscape 
(No.  2560),  which  bears  the  artist's  monogram. 


HOBBEMA 

The  talents  of  Meindert  Hobbema  (1638-1709)  were  so  dis- 
regarded by  his  countrymen  that  in  disgust  he,  at  the  age  of  thirty, 
took  a  humble  post  in  the  Customs.  His  woody  scenes  seen  in  the 
pale  sunlight  of  the  early  afternoon  are  not  copied  from  any  chance 
scenery,  but  composed ;  and  his  Water  Mill  (No.  2404),  fine  though 
it  is,  contains  passages  that  will  be  met  with  elsewhere.  The  Farm 
(No.  2404a)  is  a  very  good  picture,  as  also  is  the  Landscape  (No.  2403) 
from  the  Nieuwenhuys  collection.  A  very  large  number  of  painters, 
including  Wyntrack,  who  gives  us  a  Farm  (No.  2639),  painted  the 
figures  into  the  foregrounds  of  Hobbema's  best  works. 


PHILIPS  WOUWERMAN 

In  a  large  number  of  Philips  Wouwerman's  pictures  the 
landscapes  are  of  secondary  importance  to  the  figures  ;  and  although 
the  execution  is  careful  and  conscientious,  the  frequenter  of  picture 
galleries  is  apt  to  tire  of  his  make-believe  genre-pieces,  landscapes 
with  horses,  riders,  sportsmen,  soldiers,  robbers,  gipsies,  and  the 
like.  The  Louvre  presents  an  imposing  array  of  fifteen  of  the 
twelve  hundred  or  more  pictures  by  Philips  Wouwerman  (1619- 
1668),   and  his  brother  and  pupil  Pieter  is  credited  with  a   poor 


220  THE  LOUVRE 

but   historically  interesting    View  of  the  Forte  de  Nesles,  Paris,  in 
1664  (No.  2635). 

It  will  be  convenient  here  to  group  Adam  Pynacker  (1622- 
1673)  with  his  three  pictures,  Willem  Romeyn  (1624?-1696?)  with 
one,  Abraham  Begeyn  (1637?-1697)  with  one,  Guilliam  de  Heusch 
(1625?-1692)  with  one.  Dirk  van  den  Berghen  (1645-1690?)  with 
two,  and  Glauber  (1646-1726)  with  a  single  Landscape  (No.  2374)  in 
which  the  figures  are  inserted  by  Gerard  de  Lairesse.  Mention  must, 
however,  be  made  of  Paul  Potter,  the  highly  esteemed  cattle 
painter,  who  died  in  1654  at  the  early  age  of  twenty-nine.  One 
of  his  latest  canvases  is  the  Cows  and  Sheep  in  a  Field  (No.  2527), 
of  1652  ;  but  his  Horse  in  a  Field  (No.  2528)  of  the  following  year, 
and  the  Wood  aJb  The  Hague  (No.  2529),  give  an  excellent  idea  of 
his  art.  These  and  the  Horses  at  the  Door  of  a  Cottage  (No.  2526) 
show  that  Paul  Potter  had  a  sound  knowledge  of  animal  anatomy. 
He  is  seen  at  his  best  in  small  compositions  such  as  are  here 
exhibited,  in  which  the  construction  and  mise-en-scme  are  simple 
and  the  details  delicately  rendered.  It  is  a  popular  fallacy  that 
his  chief  contribution  to  the  fame  of  Dutch  art  was  his  large  Bull 
of  1647,  which  measures  8  ft.  by  12  ft.,  in  The  Hague  Gallery.  He 
did  not  live  long  enough  to  form  a  "school." 


THE  ITALIAN  INFLUENCE 

The  Italianising  influence  was  already  beginning  to  make 
itself  felt,  to  the  lasting  detriment  of  Dutch  painting,  and  the 
typical  example  of  this  downward  movement  is  Nicolaes  Berchem 
(1620-1683),  who  was  founded  on  his  father,  Pieter  Claesz,  and  on 
Pieter  de  Grebber,  and  Jan  Wils  at  Haarlem,  while  he  also  was 
impressed  by  Claes  Moyaert  and  J.  B.  Weenix  at  Amsterdam, 
where  he  removed  in  1677.  There  is  scarcely  a  well-furnished 
gallery  in  Europe  that  does  not  seek  to  pride  itself  on  possessing 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  221 

one  of  Berchem's  renderings  of  Crossing  the  Ford,  or  a  Woman  upon 
an  Ass  in  conversation  with  anx)ther  Person.  The  Louvre  is  no  excep- 
tion to  this  rule,  and  exhibits  his  Cattle  crossing  a  Ford  (No.  2315) 
and  nine  other  canvases  and  panels,  nearly  all  of  which  bear  his 
much-vaunted  signature.  His  art  is  to-day  deservedly  out  of 
fashion  with  discerning  collectors. 

Berchem's  pupil,  Karel  du  Jardin  (1622-1678),  who  is  in- 
variably at  much  pain  to  sign  his  pictures,  is  seen  to  some 
advantage  in  his  very  Italian  and  in  every  way  characteristic 
Italian  Charlatans  (No.  2427),  the  typical  Ford  in  Italy  (No.  2428), 
and  eight  other  works.  His  attempts  to  depict  a  Calvary  (No.  2426) 
have  not  been  crowned  with  success,  as  the  composition  is  over- 
crowded and  undramatic  ;  nor  do  we  experience  any  emotion  on 
regarding  his  Pmirait  of  Himself  (No.  2434),  a  small  production 
on  copper. 

Breenberg  (1599-1659  ?),  who  was  born  at  Deventer,  the  home 
of  Terborch,  has  depicted  a  View  of  the  Campo  Va^dno  at  Rome 
(No.  2334),  and  a  Ruins  of  the  Palace  of  the  Ccesars  (No.  2335)  in  the 
Italian  manner  beloved  by  Berchem  and  Pieter  van  Laer.  The 
latter,  who  is  also  named  Bamboccio,  is  represented  by  two  small 
oval  panels.  Lingelbach  (1622-1674),  who  frequently  collaborated 
with  other  Dutch  artists,  may  be  judged  by  his  Vegetable  Market 
at  Rome  (No.  2447)  and  three  other  canvases,  and  Frederic  de 
Moucheron  (1633  ?-1686)  by  a  Leaving  fw  the  Hunt  (No.  2482).  It 
will  be  convenient  to  mention  here  Reynier  Nooms,  whose  View 
of  the  Old  Louvre  from  the  Seine  (No.  2491)  has  some  historical 
interest. 

ARCHITECTURAL   PAINTERS 

A  limited  number  of  painters  busied  themselves  in  making 
faithful  transcripts  of  the  streets  and  the  exterior  appearance  of 
the  buildings.     Jan  van  der  Heyden  (1637-1712)  was  perhaps  the 


222  THE  LOUVRE 

most  successful  in  this  direction,  and  his  View  of  the  Tovm  Hall 
of  Amsterdam  in  1688  is  an  excellent  example  of  his  methods, 
while  the  Louvre  also  possesses  three  small  panels  by  him.  Jan 
Abrahamsz  Beerstraten  (1622-1666),  the  son  of  a  cooper  at 
Amsterdam,  travelled  to  Italy  and  the  Mediterranean,  proof  of 
vi^hich  is  afforded  by  his  Old  Tovm  Gate  at  Genoa  (No.  2310).  The 
typical  architectural  painter  is,  however,  Gerrit  Berckheyde  (1638- 
1698).  Although  he  never  went  to  Italy,  his  View  of  Trajan's 
Column  (No.  2324)  is  a  welcome  relief  from  the  many  versions 
he  painted,  with  conspicuous  success,  of  The  Market-Place  of 
Haarlem. 

Hendrik  van  Steenwyck  (1580-1648)  almost  invariably  con- 
tented himself  with  reproducing  the  Interiors  of  Churches  (Nos.  2582, 
2583) ;  but  his  Christ  in  the  House  of  Martha  and  Mary  (No.  2581) 
is  an  unusual  subject  with  him,  and  must  be  his  masterpiece. 
The  Vestibule  of  a  Palace  (No.  2490),  by  Isaac  van  Nickelle  (fl.  1660), 
is  very  good  of  its  kind  ;  but  the  Interior  of  a  Guxird-Room  (No.  2453), 
by  Aart  van  Maes,  is  a  poor  attempt  at  dramatic  action. 


MARINE  PAINTERS 

The  fact  that  the  Dutch  had  fought  with  swamp  and  water  and 
possessed  a  large  maritime  commerce,  is  reflected  in  the  Seascapes 
of  Simon  de  Vlieger  (1600-1660),  and  in  the  art  of  Ludolf 
Backhuysen  (1631-1708),  who  is  represented  by  a  Stormy  Sea 
(No.  2309)  and  five  other  canvases ;  but  one  of  the  best  works 
of  this  class  in  the  Louvre  is  the  Marine-piece  (No.  2600)  by 
Willem  van  de  Velde  the  Younger  (1633-1707),  who  crossed  over 
to  England,  and  after  a  long  career  died  at  Greenwich.  These 
men  sought  to  carry  on  the  earlier  tradition  of  Jan  van  Goyen 
and  the  two  Ruisdaels,  but  they  showed  less  originality  and 
power. 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  223 

STILL-LIFE   PAINTERS 

Much  appreciation  and  some  extravagant  praise  has  been 
lavished  on  the  still-life  painters  who,  at  the  time  when  the  higher 
aims  of  artistic  endeavour  began  to  die  out  in  Holland,  displayed 
remarkable  ability.  The  cultivation  of  horticulture  at  Haarlem, 
the  centre  of  the  tulipomania  fever  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  may  have  had  an  influence  on  the  artistic  presentation  of 
inanimate  nature ;  this  feeling  was  no  doubt  stimulated  by  the 
display  made  by  the  goldsmiths  in  an  age  of  great  prosperity. 
Willem  Claesz  Heda,  who  was  born  1594,  is  among  the  earliest  of 
the  Dutch  still-life  painters,  and  his  picture  (No.  2390)  is  dated 
1637 ;  he,  however,  did  not  die  until  more  than  forty  years  later. 
Jan  Davidsz  de  Heem  (1606-1684),  the  painter  of  Fruit  and  a  Vase  on 
a  Table  (No.  2391)  and  of  another  and  much  larger  picture  (No.  2392), 
was  the  pupil  of  his  father,  David  de  Heem  ;  as  he  spent  many  years 
at  Antwerp,  he  is  sometimes  regarded  as  a  Flemish  painter.  That 
Abraham  van  Beyeren  (1620-1675?),  who  painted  several  sea-pieces, 
was  specially  fond  of  copying  the  appearance  of  fish,  is  seen  from  his 
Still-life :  Fish  (No.  2326a),  at  the  Louvre,  which  has  in  recent  years 
also  acquired  another  work  (No.  2312a)  by  him.  Willem  Kalf 
(1621  ?-1693)  may  have  studied  under  H.  G.  Pot,  the  Haarlem  genre- 
painter.  He  was  evidently  impressed  with  the  chiaroscuro  of 
Rembrandt,  and  often  placed  the  drinking-cups,  wine-glasses,  and 
fruit  on  a  richly-coloured  tablecloth.  He  is  here  represented  by 
four  examples,  of  which  the  Dutch  Interior  (No.  2436)  is  the  best. 
Eight  pictures  by  Jan  Huysum  (1682-1749),  two  by  Jan  van  Os 
(1744-1808),  and  one  by  C.  van  Spaendonck  (1756-1839)  belong  to 
the  latest  phase  of  art  in  Holland,  and  mark  the  decadence  in  full 
operation.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Louvre  has  a  much  larger 
selection  of  still-life  pictures  than  the  National  Gallery,  which  seems 
to  regard  achievements  of  this  kind  with  disdain. 


224  THE  LOUVRE 

Melchior  Hondecoeter  (1636-1695),  the  painter  of  the  farmyard, 
gives  unmistakable  proof  of  his  power  in  his  large  signed  Eagle 
swooping  down  on  a  Farmyard  (No.  2405),  and  two  rather  smaller 
pictures  (Nos.  2406-7). 

Jan  Weenix  (1640-1719),  who  usually  concerns  himself  with  dead 
game  and  birds,  is  working  on  the  usual  lines  in  three  (Nos.  2610, 
2611,  and  2612a)  of  his  four  pictures  in  the  great  French  museum  ;  the 
other  represents  A  Seaport  (No.  2612).  He  was  the  fellow-pupil  of 
Hondecoeter  in  the  studio  of  his  father,  Jan  Baptist  Weenix  (1621- 
1660),  who  studied  for  a  time  under  the  early  Dutch  master,  Abraham 
Blomaert,  and  worked  in  Italy  for  four  years.  For  that  reason 
the  latter  has  adopted  an  Italian  mode  of  signing  his  only 
picture  (No.  2609)  in  the  Louvre. 


THE   DECLINE 

Although  Gerard  Honthorst  ("  Gerard  of  the  Night ")  was  born 
as  early  as  1590,  and  was  a  pupil  of  Blomaert,  he  may  he  relegated 
to  the  period  of  decline.  Almost  invariably  he  resorted  to  the  trick 
of  lighting  the  figures  in  his  pictures,  whether  he  was  painting 
religious  subjects,  portraits,  or  conversation-pieces,  with  a  candle- 
light effect.  This  habit  he  had  acquired  in  Italy  by  studying  the 
style  of  Caravaggio.  Of  his  five  pictures  here,  the  best  is  perhaps 
the  Portrait  of  Charles  Louis,  Duke  of  Bavaria  (No.  2410),  of  1640. 
His  Concert  (No.  2409),  painted  sixteen  years  earlier,  is  an  ill-balanced 
and  overloaded  composition. 

Such  artists  as  Abraham  Hondius,  who  paints  a  Man  Selling 
Pigeons  (No.  2407a)  ;  Karel  de  Moor,  who  was  a  pupil  of  G.  Dou, 
and  gives  us  an  insignificant  Dutch  Family  (No.  2477) ;  Eglon  van 
der  Neer,  whose  name  is  signed  on  a  small  panel,  A  Man  Selling 
Pigeons  (No.  2485) ;  Egbert  van  Heemskerck,  whose  Int&ricyr  (No.  2393) 
is  in  the  La  Gaze  collection  ;  Jan  Verkolie,  whose  Irderior  (No.  2602) 


THE  DUTCH  SCHOOL  225 

has  been  engraved  ;  H.  van  Limborch,  whose  Pleasures  of  the  Golden 
Age  (No.  2446)  was  in  the  collection  of  Louis  xvi.  ;  Louis  de  Moni, 
the  painter  of  a  Family  Scene  (No.  2476) ;  and  Willem  van  Mieris, 
a  replica  of  whose  Soap  Bubbles  (No.  2473)  is  at  The  Hague, — all 
these  mediocre  painters  are  the  despair  of  the  critic,  and  afford 
merely  momentary  entertainment  for  the  curious. 

It  is  apparent  that  by  this  period  the  art  of  Holland  was 
marked  by  mechanical  inventions,  the  surface  of  these  eighteenth- 
century  paintings  being  highly  fused  and  metallic  in  appear- 
ance. The  four  panels  of  Adriaen  van  der  Werff  (1659-1722), 
which  include  an  unpleasant  Magdalene  in  the  Desert  (No.  2617)  and 
a  repulsive  Dancing  Nymph  (No.  2619),  are  characteristic  examples 
of  his  monotonous  art.  The  Disembarkation  of  Cleopatra  (No.  2441) 
and  the  Hercules  between  Vice  and  Virtue  (No.  2443)  of  Gerard  de 
Lairesse  (1640-1711),  have  the  enamel-like  smoothness  and  meaning- 
less expression  of  academic  art,  although  they  have  their  usefulness 
as  museum  pieces. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  Louvre  does  not  contain  a 
single  example  of  the  revival  of  art  in  Holland  in  the  third  quarter 
of  the  nineteenth  century. 


«9 


T 


THE  EARLY  FRENCH  SCHOOL 

HE  early  phases  of  the  French  school  of  painting — perhaps 
it  would  be  more  correct  to  say  of  painting  in  France — 
present  one  of  the  most  interesting  problems  to  the  student 
of  art  history.  It  was  not  really  until  the  great  Exhibition  of  French 
Primitives  held  in  Paris  in  1904  that  any  serious  attempts  were 
made  to  construct  a  history  of  Early  French  painting ;  but  the 
learned  arguments  that  have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
tangled  question  have  so  far  failed  to  establish  the  existence  of 
an  important  autochthonous  school  in  the  fifteenth  century.  It  is 
true  that  contemporary  records  mention  the  names  of  a  few  painters 
who  seem  to  have  enjoyed  great  repute  at  the  Courts  at  which  they 
were  employed,  but  it  has  been  impossible  to  connect  any  notable 
extant  pictures  with  their  names ;  whilst  those  other  "  French " 
painters  who  have  left  tangible  proofs  of  their  activity  are  almost 
without  exception  of  Flemish  birth  and  training.  Indeed,  most  of 
these  early  pictures  show  no  characteristics  that  may  be  described 
as  French,  save  the  types  of  the  faces,  which  would  naturally  be 
taken  from  the  country  where  the  artists  worked. 

The  difficulty  of  dealing  with  the  Early  French  pictures  at  the 
Louvre  is  considerably  increased  by  the  uncertainty  of  their  author- 
ship, the  attributions  being  in  most  cases  tentative  and  much 
disputed.  Throughout  we  feel  the  lack  of  a  definite  basis  for  com- 
parative criticism — the  absence  of  properly  authenticated  works  by 
the  very  masters  whose  names  have  been  recorded  in  contemporary 
documents.     One  of  the  earliest  of  these  masters  is  Jean  Malouel, 

a  Fleming,  whose  real  name  was  Malwaele,  and  who  worked  in  the 

227 


228  THE  LOUVKE 

service  of  the  Dukes  of  Burgundy  at  Dijon,  where  he  died  in  1415. 
To  him  has  been  attributed,  without  sufficient  proof,  the  tondo  of 
The  Dead  Christ  supported  by  the  Eternal  FaJth&r  (No.  996)  and 
mourned  by  the  Virgin,  St.  John  and  Angels. 

Equally  uncertain  is  the  attribution  of  the  Last  Communion 
and  Martyrdmn  of  St.  Denis,  First  Bishop  of  Paris  (No.  995),  on 
which  are  seen,  against  a  gold  background,  in  the  centre,  the 
Crucified  Saviour  and  the  Eternal  Father  surrounded  by  cherubs ; 
on  the  left,  Christ  giving  the  Communion  to  the  imprisoned 
bishop,  with  a  praying  angel  in  the  foreground  ;  and  on  the  right, 
the  Decollation  of  St.  Denis  and  his  two  companions,  St.  Rusticus 
and  St.  Eleutherius.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  identify  this 
interesting  picture  with  one  ordered  by  Jean-sans-Peur,  Duke  of 
Burgundy,  from  Jean  Malouel,  and  finished  after  that  master's 
death  by  Henri  Bellechose,  another  Flemish  painter,  born  in 
Brabant,  who  worked  at  Dijon  between  1415  and  1431. 

The  Entombment  (No.  997)  is  the  work  of  an  unknown  and 
presumably  Flemish  painter,  who  shows  a  certain  affinity  with  the 
painter  of  the  famous  Parement  d'aviel  de  Narhonne  (No.  1342  Ji*) 
of  about  1374.  This  altar-front  is  supposed  to  be  by  Girard 
d'Orl^ans  and  his  son  Jean,  under  whose  name  both  the  Parement 
and  the  Entombment  were  shown  at  the  Exhibition  of  French 
Primitives  in  1904.  But  all  these  attributions  are  largely  con- 
jectural. 

THE   MAItRE  de   MOULINS 

Chauvinistic  French  critics  have  made  much  capital  out  of 
the  important  national  school  that  is  supposed  to  have  flourished 
towards  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  at  Moulins,  and  especi- 
ally of  the  mysterious  "  Maltre  de  Moulins,"  so  called  from  a 
famous  triptych  at  Moulins  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  the  work 
of  a  French  painter,  and  shows  very  marked  Italian  characteristics, 


THE  EARLY  FRENCH  SCHOOL        229 

although  the  types  of  the  faces  are  distinctly  French.  Italian 
painters  had  been  working  in  France  ever  since  Simone  Martini 
(1285?-!  344)  was  employed  to  decorate  the  Pope's  Palace  at 
Avignon ;  and  in  the  absence  of  definite  documentary  evidence  it 
will  always  remain  a  difficult  matter  to  decide  whether  certain 
pictures,  Italian  in  style  and  French  as  regards  the  types,  are  the 
work  of  Italian  masters  painting  in  France,  or  of  Frenchmen 
trained  by  ItaUans. 

To  the  Maitre  de  Moulins  have  been  loosely  ascribed  certain 
pictures  in  the  Louvre  collection,  especially  since  attempts  have  been 
made,  in  the  face  of  great  improbability,  to  identify  him  with  Jehan 
Perreal,  or  Jehan  de  Paris,  one  of  the  few  painters  of  that  period 
whose  French  nationality  has  been  satisfactorily  established. 
Perreal  was  born  at  Lyons,  and  became  Court  painter  in  Paris  to 
Charles  viii.  and  Louis  xii.  In  this  capacity  he  was  sent  to  England 
at  the  time  of  the  marriage  of  Louis  xii.  with  Princess  Mary  Tudor, 
to  design  the  bride's  toilettes.  If  Perreal  be  the  painter  of  The 
Virgin  between  Two  Donors  (No.  998d,  formerly  No.  1048,  and  now 
labelled  No.  — 48),  which  bears  upon  the  pilasters  of  a  balustrade  the 
letters  "  I  P,"  he  is  certainly  not  identical  with  the  Maitre  de  Moulins 
to  whom  have  been  attributed  the  portraits  of  Pierre  II.,  Sire  de 
Beaujeu,  Son-in-Law  of  Louis  XL  (No.  1004),  and  his  wife,  Anne  of 
France,  Duchess  of  Bourhon,  Daughter  of  Louis  XI.  (No.  1005),  which 
are  apparently  the  wings  of  a  triptych  of  which  the  centre  panel  has 
disappeared.  They  are  utterly  lacking  in  charm  of  colour  and  are 
anything  but  masterly  in  treatment.  Both  the  personages  are 
portrayed  kneeling,  the  husband  being  presented  by  his  Patron 
Saint  and  the  wife  by  St.  John  the  Evangelist.  The  Portrait  of 
Pierre  was  bought  in  1842  by  Louis  Philippe  for  £20.  The 
companion  panel  was  presented  to  the  Louvre  in  1888  by  M.  Maciet. 
M.  L.  Dimier  has  rightly  pointed  out  that  there  is  no  evidence 
whatever  to  prove  these  two  pictures  to  have  been  painted  by  a 


230  THE   LOUVRE 

French  master.     The  Virgin  between  Two  Donors  (No.  998d)  has  lately 
been  tentatively  attributed  to  the  "  Master  of  the  Ursula  Legend." 


THE  DE   SOMZEE   "MAGDALEN" 

To  the  Mattre  de  Moulins  has  also  been  attributed  the  some- 
what overrated  Magdalen  with  a  Female  Donor  (No.  1005a),  which 
was  formerly  in  the  de  Somz^e  collection  at  Brussels,  and  was,  some 
time  after  the  Exhibition  of  French  Primitives  in  1904,  bought  from 
Messrs.  T.  Agnew  &  Son  for  £5000.  The  supposed  similarities 
that  have  been  noticed  between  this  picture  and  the  Moulins  triptych 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Jehan  PerreaFs  authenticated  design  for  tha 
tomb  of  the  Duke  of  Brittany  at  Rennes  on  the  other  hand,  are 
not  sufficiently  convincing  either  to  arrive  at  a  definite  conclusion 
as  regards  the  authorship  of  this  Magdalen,  or  to  establish  the 
identity  of  the  Maitre  de  Moulins  with  Jehan  Perr^al. 

Of  an  even  more  problematic  nature  are  the  Pieta  (No.  998c, 
formerly  No.  998)  and  the  Calvary  (No.  998a),  of  which  it  is  only  safe 
to  affirm  that  both  were  painted  in  France,  the  background  showing 
in  the  case  of  the  former  the  Abbey  of  Saint-Germain-des-Pr^s,  the 
Seine,  the  Louvre,  and  the  Butte  Montmartre  ;  and  in  the  latter  an 
equally  distinguishable  view  of  the  Seine,  the  Louvre,  and  other 
buildings.  Both  pictures  appear  to  be  the  work  of  Flemish  painters 
who  were  not  entirely  uninfluenced  by  Italian  art.  This  Calvary 
is  labelled  "  Retahle  du  Parliamerd  de  Paris,"  and  was  formerly 
in  the  Palais  de  Justice  in  Paris. 

We  need  not  dwell  at  any  length  upon  the  school  of  Douai, 
which  should  be  considered  as  a  branch  of  the  Flemish  rather  than  a 
national  French  school.  Jean  Bellegambe  (c.  1470-1535)  is  its  chief 
representative,  and  presumably  the  author  of  the  small  wing  of  a 
triptych  depicting  the  figure  of  St.  Adrian  (No.  13a)  which  was 
formerly  catalogued  as  being  of  the  German  school  (No.  2739). 


THE  EARLY  FRENCH  SCHOOL  231 

JEAN   FOUQUET 

Of  far  greater  importance  is  the  school  which  flourished  at 
Tours,  for  here  at  last  we  meet  with  clearly  marked  personalities 
whose  names  are  definitely  connected  with  extant  works,  even  if 
the  character  of  their  art  remains  essentially  Flemish.  The  best 
known  artist  of  this  group  is  Jean  Fouquet  (c.  1425-1480?),  who 
was  Painter  to  Charles  vii.  and  Louis  xi.  and  wrought  the  wonder- 
ful miniatures  in  the  famous  Book  of  Hours  at  Chantilly.  He  was 
distinctly  more  successful  as  an  illuminator  than  as  a  painter, 
although  his  masterpiece,  the  Chevalier  diptych  (of  which  one  wing 
is  at  the  Antwerp  and  the  other  at  the  Berlin  Museum),  is  a  work 
of  considerable  merit.  The  Louvre  owns  an  interesting  painting 
from  his  brush — the  portrait  of  the  corpulent  Chancellor  of  France, 
Gmllaume  Juvenal  des  Ursins,  Baron  de  Trainel  (No.  288).  He  is 
depicted  in  three-quarter  profile  to  the  right,  dressed  in  a  fur-edged 
red  robe,  with  hands  folded  in  prayer,  before  an  open  book  on  a 
cushion.  The  pilasters  in  the  rich  architectural  setting  terminate 
in  two  bears  supporting  the  Chancellor's  coat  of  arms.  This 
important  picture  was  bought  in  1835  for  the  sum  of  £36,  It  was 
then  attributed  to  Michael  Wohlgemuth  ! 

Fouquet  is  known  to  have  painted  Charles  vii.  in  1444 ;  but 
the  Portrait  of  Charles  VII.,  King  of  France  (No.  289),  with  the  in- 
scription along  the  top,  "le  trJis  glorieux  roy  de  France,"  and 
below,  "  CHARLES  SEPTiESME  DE  CE  NOM,"  canuot  Certainly  be  identified 
with  the  picture  referred  to  in  contemporary  records.  The  Louvre 
picture  was  acquired  in  1838  for  £18. 

The  name  of  Jean  Fouquet  has  for  a  long  time  been  connected 
with  the  admirable  little  portrait  known  as  The  Man  with  the  Wine- 
glass (No.  1000,  formerly  No.  1000a).  It  was  shown  as  a  work  of 
Fouquet  at  the  Exhibition  of  French  Primitives  ;  and  the  attribu- 
tion is  still  maintained  by  many  French  critics,  although  in  the 


232  THE  LOUVRE 

official  Catalogue  the  picture  is  given  to  an  Unknown  French  painter 
of  the  fifteenth  century  known  as  "The  Master  of  1456"  from  a 
dated  picture  in  the  Liechtenstein  Gallery  in  Vienna.  The  whole 
style  of  the  painting  would,  however,  point  to  German  origin,  the 
only  thing  French  about  the  picture  being  the  type  of  the  personage 
represented.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  portrait,  which  was 
bought  from  a  Paris  dealer  in  1906  for  £7600,  was  formerly  in  the 
collection  of  Count  Wilczek  in  Vienna,  and  was  bought  by  its  former 
owner  at  Ulm.  It  is  probably  the  work  of  a  painter  of  the  Swabian 
school. 

NICOLAS   FROMENT 

Nicolas  Froment,  the  painter  of  the  diptych  King  Rem  and  his 
Second  Wife,  Jeanne  de  Laval  (No.  304a),  is  frequently  mentioned  by 
those  who  have  constituted  themselves  champions  of  a  supposed 
important  Early  French  national  school.  The  few  pictures  with 
which  he  may  be  credited  include  the  St.  Siffrein,  now  in  the 
Seminary  at  Avignon,  the  Raising  of  Lazarus,  now  in  the  Kaufmann 
collection  at  Berlin,  and  the  Burning  Bush,  which  includes  the 
Portraits  of  King  Rene  and  Jeanne  de  Laval,  as  the  Donors  who 
ordered  the  picture  for  the  Cathedral  at  Aix,  where  it  stiU  is.  But 
the  Louvre  diptych  is  an  inferior  work.  Nothing  is  known  about 
the  dates  of  his  birth  and  death.  He  flourished  between  1460  and 
1480,  and  was  employed  by  good  King  Ren^,  who  was  himself  a 
painter  of  some  distinction,  if  contemporary  chroniclers  are  to  be 
believed.  Froment  died  at  Avignon,  where  he  appears  to  have 
worked  some  considerable  time,  allowing  his  art  to  absorb  those 
distinctly  Italian  tendencies  which  distinguished  the  productions  of 
the  Avignon  school  ever  since  Simone  Martini  had  early  in  the 
fourteenth  century  worked  in  the  Provenfal  city  of  the  Popes. 

A  very  typical  instance  of  this  Avignon  school,  with  its  blend- 
ing of  Northern  realism  and  the  noble  sense  of  style  of  the  early 


THE  EARLY  FRENCH  SCHOOL        233 

Italians,  is  the  Pieta  (No.  1001b).  The  group  of  the  Virgin  with 
the  rigid  body  of  Christ  across  her  knees,  St.  John  on  the  left  and 
the  Magdalen  on  the  right,  has  a  sculpturesque  dignity  and 
grandeur  not  to  be  found  in  the  Northern  art  of  that  period.  The 
Donor  on  the  extreme  left  rather  destroys  the  balance  of  the  com- 
position. The  mourners  and  the  landscape  are  silhouetted  against 
a  gold  background.  The  picture  was  formerly  in  the  Chartreuse  of 
Villeneuve  near  Avignon,  and  was  bought  by  the  Soci^t^  des  Amis 
du  Louvre  for  the  great  French  national  collection  at  the  price 
of  £4000.  A  well-known  Spanish  critic  has  claimed  that  this  is  one 
of  the  very  rare  works  by  the  Spanish  artist  Bartolom^.  Bermejo. 

Of  the  same  school,  but  vastly  inferior  in  conception  and 
execution,  is  the  much  restored  Christ  rising  from  the  Tomb,  with  a 
Donor  and  St.  Agricola  (No.  1001c).  There  are  in  Gallery  X.  (Salle 
Jean  Fouquet)  a  few  more  anonymous  fifteenth-century  paintings, 
which  need  not  here  be  discussed  as  they  are  of  no  real  significance. 


30 


THE  SIXTEENTH-CENTURY 
FRENCH  SCHOOL 

THE  mere  fact  that  many  of  the  drawings  and  paintings 
which  are  now  with  good  reason  believed  to  be  the  work  of 
Jean  or  Jehan  Clouet  (called  Jehannet)  passed,  at  a  time 
when  art  criticism  followed  methods  less  scientific  than  those  which 
prevail  at  present,  under  the  name  of  Holbein,  should  suffice  to 
indicate  that  Clouet's  art  belongs  essentially  to  the  Renaissance, 
and  that  the  Primitive  or  Gothic  period  had  come  to  a  close 
when  he  arrived  in  France  from  the  Netherlands,  where  he 
was  born  about  1475.  He  apparently  worked  first  at  Tours, 
where  his  presence  in  1516  is  testified  by  documentary  evidence ; 
and  he  went  to  Paris  before  1529.  Although  he  was  never 
naturalised,  he  became  Groom  of  the  Chamber  to  Fran9ois  i.,  and 
enjoyed  an  enormous  reputation  for  his  skill  in  portraiture.  He 
died  in  1540  or  1541. 


JEAN   CLOUET'S   DRAWINGS 

Not  a  single  drawing  or  painting  that  has  come  down  to  us  from 
this  period,  which  was  remarkable  for  its  enormous  production  in 
Court  portraiture,  bears  the  signature  of  Jehan  Clouet ;  but  as 
a  number  of  the  best  portrait  drawings  in  the  famous  Chantilly 
collection — notably  that  of  the  Preux  de  Marignan — are  obviously 
jfrom  the  same  hand,  and  extend,  as  can  be  proved  from  the  age 
of  the  personages  portrayed,  from   1514  to  1540, — the  very  years 

235 


236  THE  LOUVRE 

when  Jean  Clouet  is  known  to  have  worked  in  France, — it  is  quite 
reasonable  to  assume  that  artist  to  be  the  author  of  this  group 
of  drawings.  Their  superiority  over  all  the  other  drawings  of 
the  period  would  account  for  the  fame  enjoyed  by  the  elder 
Olouet  among  his  contemporaries. 

On  the  strength  of  these  drawings  it  has  been  possible  to 
ascribe  to  Jean  Clouet  a  few  painted  portraits  which  are  obviously 
based  on  the  drawings  and  show,  apart  from  such  differences 
as  must  necessarily  result  from  the  use  of  a  different  medium,  the 
same  characteristics — firm  draughtsmanship,  a  sure  delicate  touch 
in  the  delineation  of  the  features,  and  also  a  certain  stiffness  and 
hardness  of  contour  which  are  never  to  be  found  in  the  otherwise 
very  similar  but  always  supple  and  masterly  handling  of  Holbein. 
It  is  now  known  that  practically  all  the  painted  portraits  of  the 
period  were  executed  from  the  delicate  drawings  in  black  and 
red  chalk,  of  which  so  vast  a  number  have  come  down  to  our 
day.  But  the  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  these  drawings  served 
as  models  to  different  painters  leaves  the  question  of  attribution  in 
a  state  of  uncertainty.  The  mere  tracing  back  of  a  picture  to  some 
extant  drawing  of  acknowledged  authenticity  cannot  be  taken  as 
proof  of  their  common  origin. 

Two  pictures  at  the  Louvre  are  attributed  to  Jean  Clouet. 
Both  are  portraits  of  Fram^ois  I.,  King  of  France,  but  only  the 
smaller  one  (No.  127)  appears  to  be  from  his  hand.  Clouet's  royal 
patron  is  here  depicted  in  three-quarter  profile  to  the  right,  at 
the  age  of  about  thirty,  so  that  the  picture  may  be  assumed 
to  have  been  painted  about  the  year  1524.  It  is  based  on  a 
drawing  in  the  Chantilly  collection.  The  larger  Piyrtrait  of 
Frangois  I.  (No.  126)  has  at  various  times  been  attributed  to  Jean 
Olouet,  Mabuse,  and  Joost  van  Cleef,  but  is,  as  has  been  pointed 
out  by  M.  Dimier,  pronouncedly  Italian  in  colour  and  in  the 
treatment  of  the  costume  and  hands. 


THE  SIXTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL    237 

FRANgOIS   CLOUET 

Towards  the  end  of  his  life  Jean  Clouet  was  assisted  in  the 
execution  of  his  numerous  commissions  by  his  brother  Clouet  de 
Navarre,  to  whom  is  attributed  the  Portrait  of  Louis  de  JSaint- 
Gelais,  Lord  of  Lansac,  Captain  of  one  of  the  "  Compagnies  des  cent 
Gentilshommes"  under  Charles  IX.  (No.  134),  and  by  his  son 
Fran9ois  Clouet  (1500  ?-1572).  It  has  been  stated  that  rran9ois 
Clouet,  who  was  to  become  after  his  father's  death  the, favourite 
portrait  painter  of  Fran9ois  i.,  Henri  ii.,  Catherine  de  M^dicis, 
rran9ois  ii.,  and  Charles  ix.,  was  born  at  Tours ;  but  it  is  far 
more  likely  that  he  too  was  born  in  the  Netherlands,  and,  while 
still  young,  accompanied  his  father  to  France.  Practically  nothing 
is  known  of  his  life  before  the  year  1541,  when  Fran9ois  i.  renounced 
to  Clouet  his  kingly  right  to  the  artist's  inheritance,  which  could  have 
been  claimed  by  the  Crown  as  the  estate  of  a  foreigner.  In  the  same 
year  Fran9ois  Clouet  was  appointed  Groom  of  the  Chamber  and 
Painter-in-Ordinary  to  the  King.  < 

The  Louvre  is  fortunate  in  possessing  one  of  the  exceedingly 
rare  signed  pictures  by  this  artist  in  the  Portrait  of  Pierre  Quthe 
(No.  127a),  which  was  found  in  Vienna  a  few  years  ago  by 
M.  Moreau-N^laton  and  presented  to  the  Gallery  by  that  active 
and  patriotic  institution,  the  Society  des  Amis  du  Louvre.  Pierre 
Quthe  was  a  notable  burgher  and  apothecary  of  Paris,  who  owned 
one  of  the  finest  gardens  in  that  city.  He  was  an  intimate  friend 
and  neighbour  of  Fran9ois  Clouet  in  the  rue  St.  Avoye.  In  the 
Louvre  painting,  which  bears  in  the  left  -  hand  bottom  corner 
the  inscription 

FR.    lANETII    OPVS 

E.    QUTTO   AMICO    8INGVLARI 

AETATIS    SVE   XLIII  1562 


238  THE  LOUVRE 

he  is  depicted  three-quarter-length  life  size,  dressed  in  a  doublet 
of  black  velvet  with  lace  insertions,  with  a  herbarium.  The 
picture  hangs  at  present  on  a  screen  in  Gallery  XV. 

Another  unquestionably  authentic  work  is  the  charming 
Portrait  of  Elizabeth  of  Austria,  Wife  of  Charles  IX.  (No.  130),  of 
which  a  preparatory  study  in  chalk,  dated  1571,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Paris  Print  Cabinet.  The  face  is  drawn  and  modelled  with 
rare  delicacy,  and  every  detail  of  the  richly  jewelled  gold  brocade 
costume  is  rendered  with  faultless  and  miniature-like  precision. 

Yet  another  precious  Uttle  picture  from  the  same  hand  is  the 
small  three-quarter-length  Portrait  of  Charles  IX.,  King  of  France 
(No.  128),  which  is  a  reduced  replica  of  the  signed  life-size  version 
in  the  Vienna  Museum.  Both  pictures  were  originally  in  Vienna, 
whence  they  were  removed  by  Napoleon  in  1809,  but  only  the 
larger  picture  was  taken  back  to  the  Austrian  capital  in  1815. 

The  Portrait  of  Claude  de  Beaune  (No.  133a)  is  possibly 
another,  though  not  very  important,  work  from  the  master's  own 
brush ;  but  neither  the  Portrait  of  Franqois  de  Lorraine,  Due  de 
Cruise  (No.  131),  nor  the  Portrait  of  Henri  II.,  King  of  France 
(No.  129),  are  of  sufficient  merit  to  justify  their  attribution  to 
Fran9ois  Clouet ;  whilst  the  portraits  of  diaries  IX.  (No.  132)  and 
Elizabeth  of  Austria  (No.  133)  are  frankly  admitted  to  be  copies 
after  originals  by  the  master. 

CORNEILLE   DE   LYON 

Fran9ois  Clouet's  chief  rival  in  royal  favour  was  another 
Netherlander  domiciled  in  France,  who,  from  the  city  in  which 
he  spent  the  years  of  his  greatest  activity,  has  become  known  as 
Corneille  de  Lyon.  He  was  apparently  the  head  of  a  busy 
workshop  at  Lyons,  from  which  were  turned  out  large  numbers 
of  thinly  painted,  daintily  touched-in  three-quarter  profile  heads, 


THE  SIXTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL    239 

executed  almost  transparently  on  a  light  ground.  Although  these 
portraits  are  now  generally  described  under  the  generic  name  of 
Corneille  de  Lyon,  only  the  best  among  them  can  be  accepted 
as  the  master's  own  handiwork.  Room  XI.  at  the  Louvre  con- 
tains several  insignificant  and  badly  repainted  portraits  of 
this  type.  They  are  of  no  importance,  as  they  are  only  copies 
or  studio  productions.  Corneille  became  naturalised  in  1547, 
in  which  year  he  was  appointed  Painter  to  the  King.  He 
died  about  1575. 


THE   SCHOOL   OF   FONTAINEBLEAU 

The  death  of  Perr^al  and  Bourdichon  a  few  years  after  the 
accession  of  Fran9ois  i.  had  left  France  without  any  artists  of 
note,  save  the  few  foreign  portrait  painters  employed  by  the 
Court.  Fran9ois  i.,  an  enthusiastic  art  lover,  who  had  seen  and 
admired  the  great  Italian  masters  in  their  own  country,  spared 
no  effort  to  attract  the  leading  masters  to  France.  We  have  seen 
that  he  actually  succeeded  in  securing  the  services  of  the  aged 
Leonardo  da  Vinci,  and  that  for  a  brief  span  Andrea  del 
Sarto  worked  at  his  Court.  When,  about  1530,  that  art-loving 
king  turned  his  attention  to  the  decoration  of  his  palace  at 
Fontainebleau,  there  was  not  a  single  painter  of  French  nation- 
ality, or  artist  living  in  France,  who  could  have  been  entrusted  with 
so  formidable  a  task,  and  Fran9ois  i.  was  again  forced  to  enlist 
the  best  Italian  painters  available  for  the  purpose.  Having  first 
engaged  Pellegrino  and  other  third-rate  artists,  he  succeeded,  in 
1531,  in  inducing  the  Florentine  Rosso  to  undertake  the  execution 
and  supervision  of  the  decorative  work  at  Fontainebleau ;  and  in 
the  following  year  the  Bolognese  Primaticcio  entered  his  service. 
Both  belong  to  the  Italian  eclectic  schools,  and  only  concern  us 
here  in  so  far  as  their  example  led  to  the   founding  of  what   has 


240  THE  LOUVRE 

been  called  the   "School   of  Fontainebleau,"  which  was  really  an 
offshoot  of  the  Italian  eclectic  school. 

In  the  early  years  of  Rosso's  and  Primaticcio's  activity  at 
Fontainebleau  practically  all  the  work  was  done  by  these  two 
painters  and  their  Italian  assistants,  whose  band  was  joined  by 
Niccol6  dell'  Abbate.  It  was  only  after  the  death  of  rran9ois  i. 
that  the  teaching  of  the  Italian  eclectics  at  Fontainebleau  pro- 
duced a  generation  of  French  artists  capable  of  doing  justice 
to  the  decorative  tasks  for  which  an  ever-increasing  demand 
had  meanwhile  arisen.  That  the  Louvre  is  singularly  poor  in 
works  by  these  painters  may  partly  be  accounted  for  by  the  com- 
parative scarcity  of  easel  pictures  painted  by  artists  who  were 
chiefly  employed  for  interior  decoration.  There  is  no  reason  for 
crediting  any  Frenchmen  with  the  three  anonymous  school  of 
Fontainebleau  pictures  in  Gallery  XI. :  Diana  (No.  1013),  The 
Chastity  of  Scipio  (No.  1014),  and  The  Toilet  of  Venus  (No.  1014a). 
The  Chastity  of  Sdpio  in  particular  would  appear  to  be  the  work  of 
Niccol6  deir  Abbate. 

JEAN  COUSIN 

The  most  famous  of  aU  the  French  painters  of  the  school 
is  Jean  Cousin,  who  from  the  Last  Judgment  (No.  155)  at  the 
Louvre — the  only  known  painting  from  his  brush  that  has  been 
preserved — has  been  called  "The  French  Michelangelo."  Nothing 
is  known  of  his  life,  save  that  he  was  born  at  Soucy,  near  Sens, 
that  he  worked  in  Paris  in  the  third  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  that  he  was  still  alive  in  1583.  Comparison  of  his  picture  with 
Michelangelo's  great  work  in  the  Sistine  Chapel  only  helps  to  ac- 
centuate the  absurd  over-estimation  to  which  he  owes  his  sobriquet. 
He  was  merely  a  follower  of  Primaticcio,  an  excellent  draughtsman 
with  great  knowledge  of  anatomy,  but  lacking  in  taste,  imagina- 
tion, and  real  power. 


THE  SIXTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL    241 

Ambroise  Dubois  (1543-1614)  was  born  at  Antwerp,  but  is 
generally  counted  among  the  French  painters  of  the  school  of 
Fontainebleau.  He  was  entrusted  by  Henri  iv.  with  several 
important  series  of  paintings  for  the  decoration  of  the  apartments 
at  Fontainebleau,  notably  with  eight  scenes  illustrating  Tasso's 
"  Gerusalemme  Lihercda "  for  one  of  the  Queen's  rooms,  and  fifteen 
scenes  from  '' Theogenes  and  Chariclea"  by  Heliodorus  for  the 
"King's  Great  Closet."  One  from  each  series  has  found  its  way 
into  the  Louvre  collection :  The  Baptism  of  Glorinda  (No.  272), 
and  Chariclea,  undergoing  the  Ordeal  of  Fire,  is  recognised  by  her 
Parents^  King  Hydaspes  and  Queen  Persina  (No.  271). 

The  only  other  painter  of  this  group  who  is  represented  at 
the  Louvre  is  Martin  Fr^minet  (1567-1619),  who  was  only  indirectly 
connected  with  the  school  of  Fontainebleau,  as  he  had  received  his 
art  education  in  Florence.  His  best  known  work  is  the  ceiling 
of  the  Trinity  Chapel  at  Fontainebleau.  His  picture  at  the  Louvre 
represents  Mercury  ordering  ^Eneas  to  leave  Dido  (No.  304). 

The  decline  of  the  school  of  Fontainebleau  was  so  rapid  and 
complete  that,  when  Marie  de  M^dicis  decided  to  have  the  great 
gallery  of  the  Luxembourg  Palace  decorated,  in  1620,  there  was 
not  a  single  painter  left  in  France  capable  to  undertake  this 
important  work,  which  was  eventually  entrusted  to  Rubens.  But 
the  whole  direction  to  be  taken  by  French  seventeenth  -  century 
art  had  been  determined  by  Fran9ois  i.,  and  the  influence  of  the 
Late  Italians  remained  paramount  until  the  dawn  of  the  new  era 
which  was  to  be  initiated  by  Watteau. 


31 


THE   LATER   FRENCH   SCHOOL 

THROUGHOUT  the  seventeenth  century  the  impulse  for  the 
artistic  activity  of  France  emanated  from  Rome.  But 
before  discussing  the  dominating  personalities  of  the  age 
we  must  refer  to  a  few  painters  who  occupy  a  more  or  less  isolated 
position  in  the  art  of  their  country. 

The  naturalism  of  Caravaggio  was  introduced  into  France 
by  two  of  his  followers,  Jean  de  Boulongne,  called  Le  Valentin 
(1591-1634),  and  Simon  Vouet  (1590-1649),  who  was  also  slightly 
influenced  by  the  Venetians.  Valentin  spent  the  best  part  of 
his  life  in  Rome,  where  he  died  in  1634.  The  Louvre  owns,  among 
eight  pictures  from  his  brush  (not  all  of  which  are  exhibited),  his 
masterpiece.  The  Innocence  of  Susannah  recognised  (No.  5Q),  which 
has  the  vigorous  handling  and  bold  chiaroscuro  of  the  Neapolitan 
school. 

Simon  Vouet,  who  came  to  England  at  the  age  of  fifteen, 
and  subsequently  travelled  in  Turkey  and  Italy,  where  he  re- 
mained until  his  appointment  as  Painter  to  the  King  took 
him  back  to  Paris  in  1627,  tried  to  combine  the  naturalism 
of  Caravaggio  with  the  colouring  of  the  Venetians,  an 
endeavour  in  which  he  was  only  partially  successful,  as  he 
was  not  equipped  by  nature  with  a  sensuous  appreciation  of 
beautiful  colour.  The  Louvre  owns  a  dozen  Scriptural  subjects 
and  allegorical  figures  by  Vouet ;  but  even  the  best  of  them. 
The  Presentation  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple  (No.  971),  is  but  a  dull 

243 


244  THE  LOUVRE 

and  heavy  performance ;  whilst  his  Portrait  of  Louis  XIII. 
(No.  976)  is  wholly  devoid  of  artistic  merit.  Perhaps  he  owes  his 
fame  chiefly  to  the  fact  that  he  was  the  master  of  the  absurdly 
overrated  Le  Sueur  and  of  that  art  despot  of  the  Louis  xrv. 
era,  Charles  Le  Brun. 


THE   BROTHERS  LE  NAIN 

Of  far  greater  artistic  significance  are  the  three  brothers, 
Antoine,  Louis,  and  Matthieu  Le  Nain,  who  were  born  at  Laon,  and 
flourished  in  Paris  during  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
Antoine  and  Louis  died  in  1648,  and  Matthieu  in  1677.  Very  little 
is  known  of  their  history,  but  the  splendid  array  of  their  works 
in  Gallery  XIII.  proves  them  to  have  had  close  affinities  with  the 
contemporary  Dutch  and  Flemish  schools,  even  if  their  manner  of 
composition  suggests  close  acquaintance  with  Spanish  art.  Their 
subjects,  too,  like  those  of  many  of  the  Northern  masters  of  their 
time,  are  taken  from  the  daily  life  of  the  people,  which  is  rendered 
with  naive  honesty,  and  at  times  with  a  real  appreciation  of  beautiful 
pigment.  So  far  it  has  been  impossible  to  distinguish  between 
the  works  of  the  three  brothers,  as  even  the  signatures  "  le  nain, 
fecit  1647,"  ou  the  Portraits  in  an  Interior  (No.  543),  and  "le  nain, 
fecit  anno  1642,"  on  the  Peosants  at  their  Meal  (No.  548,  La  Caze  Gallery), 
aflbrd  no  clue  to  the  solution  of  the  problem.  The  striking  difier- 
ences  in  brushwork  and  colouring,  which  are  to  be  noticed  in  the 
eleven  Le  Nain  pictures  at  the  Louvre,  would  certainly  suggest 
that  the  three  brothers  did  not,  or  did  only  rarely,  collaborate 
on  the  same  pictures.  The  painter  of  The  Return  from  Haymaking 
(No.  542),  with  its  prophetic  suggestion  of  the  plein-air  effects  of 
late  nineteenth-century  art,  cannot  have  had  much  in  common 
with  the  painter  of  the  dull  and  dingy  Denial  of  St.  Peter 
(No.  547). 


THE   SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     245 

NICOLAS   POUSSIN 

The  founder  of  the  Classicist  school  of  French  painting, 
which  has  had  official  approval  and  support  from  his  time 
to  the  present  day,  was  Nicolas  Poussin  (1594-1665).  Born  at 
Les  Andelys  in  Normandy,  he  went  to  Paris  at  the  age  of  eighteen, 
and  became  so  fascinated  by  the  examples  of  antique  sculpture 
that,  in  spite  of  his  extreme  poverty,  he  determined  to  continue 
his  studies  in  Rome.  It  is  unnecessary  here  to  relate  the  struggles 
that  preceded  his  arrival  at  Rome  in  1624.  He  frequented  the 
school  of  Domenichino ;  but  what  was  more  decisive  for  the  forma- 
tion of  his  style  was  his  unceasing  study  of  antique  sculpture,  in 
which  he  was  guided  and  encouraged  by  his  friend,  the  sculptor 
Duquesnoy.  After  some  years  of  continued  poverty,  he  found 
at  last  liberal  patronage,  and  rose  to  such  fame  that  on  his 
return  to  Paris  in  1640  he  was  appointed  Painter-in-Ordinary 
to  the  King.  However,  the  duties  and  restrictions  attached 
to  this  position  proved  so  irksome  to  Poussin,  that  after  two 
years  he  returned  to  Rome,  where  he  spent  the  rest  of  his 
life. 

At  the  Louvre  is  to  be  found  an  imposing  array  of  forty 
canvases  by  Poussin,  whose  art  is  as  typical  an  expression  of  French 
genius  as  the  poetry  of  Corneille.  It  is  essentially  intellectual, 
based  on  theoretical  rules  of  design  and  composition,  not  in  the 
least  sensuous  or  emotional,  but  always  coldly  classical.  The  vast 
majority  of  his  paintings  at  the  Louvre  are  in  such  a  deplorable 
state  of  deterioration  and  neglect  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
form  an  adequate  idea  of  their  original  colour,  but  even  the  most 
ardent  admirers  of  the  master  do  not  maintain  that  he  was  a  great 
colourist.  His  pictures  are  entirely  dependent  on  beauty  of  form 
and  rhythmic  design.  They  might  almost  be  described  as  painted 
reliefs.     This  applies  at  least  to  his  treatment  of  the  human  figure. 


246  THE  LOUVRE 

His  conception  of  landscape,  though  still  severely  classical,  is  more 
pictorial  and  testifies  to  a  genuine  love  of  Nature — Nature  idealised 
by  a  lofty  imagination.  To  appreciate  his  greatness  as  a  landscape 
painter,  one  has  only  to  examine  the  glorious  setting  to  his  OrpheiLS 
and  Eurydice  (No.  740).  The  figures  here  are  really  of  quite 
subordinate  importance — mere  incidents  in  a  landscape  painted 
with  consummate  mastery,  perfect  in  linear  and  aerial  per- 
spective. 

The  Shepherds  in  Arcadia  (No.  734,  Plate  XXXVII.)  may  be 
quoted  to  illustrate  the  calculated  rhythm  of  his  design  and  his 
indebtedness  to  classic  art  from  which  he  derived  his  nobility  of 
form.  Real  dramatic  action  was  beyond  Poussin's  range.  His 
famous  Rape  of  the  Sabine  Women  (No.  724)  is  a  striking  instance 
of  his  failure  to  grasp  the  significant  difierence  between  dramatic 
movement  and  mere  heroic  posturing.  Far  more  inspired,  and 
therefore  more  natural  and  dramatically  effective,  is  the  superb 
circular  painting  for  a  ceiling  commissioned  by  Cardinal  Richelieu 
and  representing  Time  rescuing  Truth  from  the  Attaxiks  of  Envy  and 
Discord  (No.  735).  The  allegory  is  said  to  have  been  intended  as  an 
allusion  to  the  circumstances  which  induced  Poussin  to  leave  Paris 
for  good.  The  design  has  more  real  vitality  than  is  generally  to  be 
found  in  Poussin's  work  ;  the  action  of  the  figures  is  more  natural ; 
and  the  colour  music  is  not  drowned  by  the  prevalence  of  dingy 
browns.  The  decorative  effect  heralds  in  a  strange  way  the  art  of 
the  next  century,  and  particularly  that  of  Boucher. 

To  see  Poussin  in  the  right  perspective  as  regards  the  world's 
great  masters,  one  need  only  compare  his  two  Bacchanals  (Nos.  729 
and  730)  with  Titian's  rendering  of  a  similar  theme.  The  com- 
parison is  disastrous  for  the  eclectic  Frenchman.  A  Portrait  of 
the  Painter  (No.  743)  from  Poussin's  own  brush  is  to  be  found  in 
Room  XIV.,  where  no  fewer  than  thirty-seven  of  his  pictures 
are  on  view. 


PLATE  XXXVII— NICOLAS  POUSSIN 
(1594-1665) 

FKENCH  SCHOOL 

No.  734.— THE  SHEPHERDS  IN  ARCADIA 

(Les  Bergers  d'Arcadie) 

In  the  centre  of  a  landscape  with  receding  ranges  of  hills,  three  shepherds,  leaning  on  their  long  staves, 
and  a  maiden  in  classic  garb,  are  gathered  around  an  ancient  tomb  surrounded  by  trees.  An  inscription  on 
the  tomb,  "£<  in  Arcadia  Eijo,"  engages  their  attention.  One  of  the  shepherds  is  kneeling  and  reading  the 
inscription  to  his  companion  on  the  left,  whilst  the  third  man  of  the  group  leans  forward  to  point  out 
to  the  maiden  the  significance  of  the  inscription. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

2  ft.  9^  in.  X  3  ft.  11^  in.     (0-85  x  1-21.) 


THE  SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     247 

CLAUDE  LORRAIN 

Strangely  enough,  the  otherwise  very  complete  collection  of 
French  pictures  at  the  Louvre  does  not  contain  a  single  example 
of  Poussin's  brother-in-law,  Gaspard  Dughet,  better  known  as 
Gaspard  Poussin  (1613-1675),  who  devoted  himself  more  exclusively 
to  landscape  than  did  his  more  illustrious  relative.  Nicolas  Poussin's 
influence  also  became  decisive  for  the  formation  of  the  style  of  Claude 
Gell^e,  called  Le  Lorrain  (1600-1682),  who  is  represented  at  the  Louvre 
by  seventeen  pictures  (Nos.  310-326),  most  of  which  also  have  sufiered 
considerably  from  discoloration  and  neglect.  Claude,  who  was  the 
child  of  poor  parents,  started  life  as  a  cook.  In  this  capacity  he 
went  to  Rome,  where  his  talent  for  art  was  discovered  by  the  land- 
scape painter  Agostino  Tassi,  to  whom  he  served  as  cook  and 
apprentice.  Having  learned  all  he  could  from  his  master,  he 
returned  to  France  in  1625,  but,  like  Poussin,  preferred  to  go  back 
to  Rome  after  two  years  spent  in  his  native  country.  In  the 
Papal  city  he  lived  the  rest  of  his  days,  and  rose  to  fame  and 
affluence. 

He  was  essentially  a  landscape  painter.  The  historical  and 
legendary  incidents  introduced  in  such  pictures  as  The  JDis&mharkaiion 
of  Cfleopaira  at  Tarsis  (No.  314),  or  Ulysses  restoring  Chrys&is  to  her 
Father  (No.  316),  were  to  him  a  mere  excuse  for  painting  classic 
landscapes  and  imaginary  buildings  of  noble  proportion  bathed  in 
a  golden  atmosphere,  which  has  hardly  been  rivalled  by  any  con- 
temporary or  later  painter.  It  is  only  on  rare  occasions,  as  in 
the  View  of  the  Campo  Vacdno  at  Rome  (No.  311),  that  he  applied 
his  gifts  to  the  portrayal  of  nature.  As  a  rule,  his  views  are 
carefully  arranged  combinations  of  architectural  and  landscape 
elements  brought  together  arbitrarily,  and  generally  disposed  in 
the  manner  of  the  wings  and  backcloth  of  a  stage  scene,  but 
connected  by  the  unity  of  light  and  atmosphere.     Considering  this 


248  THE  LOUVRE 

method,  it  is  amazing  that  his  memory  enabled  him  to  invent  such 
imaginary  scenes  with  so  great  a  degree  of  truth.  The  View  of  a 
Sea  Pmt  (No.  317,  Plate  XXXVIII.),  in  the  subdued  light  of  a 
misty  day,  is  a  magnificent  instance  of  his  masterly  management 
of  aerial  perspective.  It  is  signed  and  dated  "  claude  in  roma,  1646." 
It  is  generally  known  how  much  Turner  in  his  first  manner  owed  to 
the  example  of  Claude.  That  even  Watteau  was  indebted  to  him 
may  be  gathered  from  such  pictures  as  The  Village  Fete  (No.  312), 
which,  signed  and  dated,  "  glaudio,  inv.  Roma,  1639,"  contains  in  germ 
the  elements  that  constituted  the  greatness  of  the  eighteenth- 
century  master. 

LE  SUEUR 

"Whilst  Poussin  and  Claude  were  working  in  Rome,  two  pupils 
of  Vouet  reaped  the  highest  honours  in  France.  Eustache  Le 
Sueur  (1617-1655),  whom  his  compatriots  in  their  incomprehensible 
over-estimation  of  his  mediocre  gifts  have  called  the  "French 
Raphael,"  certainly  strove  to  emulate  the  divine  Urbinate ;  but 
how  badly  he  succeeded  in  this  endeavour  is  to  be  gathered  from 
the  fifty-two  paintings,  by  the  placing  of  which  his  memory  is 
retained  at  the  Louvre.  What  dignity  there  is  in  the  simple 
flow  of  line  in  his  designs,  is  completely  ruined  by  the  offensive 
crudeness  of  his  colour.  Even  allowing  for  the  inevitable  fluctua- 
tions of  taste  in  matters  of  art,  it  is  difficult  now  to  understand 
how  enthusiasm  could  ever  have  been  aroused  by  the  works  that 
were  considered  his  masterpieces,  St.  Paul  'preaching  at  Ephesus 
(No.  560),  which  at  the  beginning  of  last  century  was  valued  at 
£10,000  (!),  and  the  twenty-two  Scenes  from  the  Life  of  St.  Bruno 
(Nos.  564-585),  painted  between  1645  and  1648  for  the  small  cloister 
of  the  Carthusians  in  Paris.  This  series,  which  is  a  severe  tax 
on  the  patience  of  the  conscientious  visitor,  fills  the  whole  of 
Gallery   XII.,   whilst   other    paintings  connected  with  it  intrude 


PLATE  XXXVIIl.— CLAUDE  GELLEE,  CALLED  CLAUDE  LORRAIN 

(1600-1682) 

FRENCH  SCHOOL 

No.  317.— VIEW  OF  A  SEAPOKT 

(Vue  d'un  Port  de  Mer  :  Effet  de  Brume) 

In  the  foreground,  on  the  beach,  are  groups  of  men  occupied  with  unloading  mercliandise  and  cattle. 
Sailing  ships  are  at  anchor  in  the  port,  and  boats  are  floating  on  the  rippling  water.  On  the  left  a 
monumental  staircase  leads  from  the  landing-steps  to  a  palace,  beyond  which  is  seen  a  fort ;  a  classic  temple 
on  the  right.     Sunset  effect,  the  power  of  the  sun  being  softened  by  a  mist  over  the  far  distance. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

Signed  on  a  stone  in  the  left  foreground  : — "CLAUDE  in  Eoma,  1646" 

3  ft.  103  in.  X  4  ft.  11  in.     (1-19  x  1-50.) 


THE  SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY   FRENCH   SCHOOL      249 

into   the   adjoining  room,    which   is    consecrated    to   the   brothers 
Le  Nain. 

Before  passing  on  to  Vouet's  most  famous  pupil,  Charles  Le 
Brun,  whose  despotic  power  imposed  upon  French  painting  during 
the  ''grand  siecle"  its  pompous  rhetorical  character,  mention 
should  be  made  of  S^bastien  Bourdon  (1616-1671),  who,  but  for 
his  prolonged  sojourn  in  Rome,  which  fed  his  ambition  to  excel  in 
the  "grand  style,"  would  have  been  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
artists  of  his  century.  This  conclusion  is,  at  least,  justified  by 
his  precious  little  painting  of  a  group  of  Beggars  (No.  76),  which 
is  perhaps  unrivalled  in  French  seventeenth-century  art  for  quality 
of  paint  and  appreciation  of  tone  values  ;  and  by  his  excellent 
Portrait  of  the  Philosopher  Rene  Descartes  (No.  78),  who  was 
also  painted  by  Frans  Hals  (No.  2383).  In  his  treatment  of 
scriptural  and  historical  subjects  he  does  not  rise  above  the  dull 
level  of  his  contemporaries. 


CHARLES   LE   BRUN 

Charles  Le  Brun  (1619-1690)  studied  first  under  Vouet,  but, 
attracted  by  Poussin's  stronger  personality,  followed  that  master 
to  Rome  in  1642,  and  continued  his  studies  under  his  guidance. 
When  Le  Brun  returned  to  Paris  four  years  later,  his  reputation 
was  already  firmly  established.  Patronised  by  Louis  xiv.'s 
powerful  minister,  Colbert,  he  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
newly  founded  Academy  of  Painting,  and  of  the  Gobelins  Manu- 
factory, became  First  Painter  to  the  King  and  "Prince"  of  the 
French  Academy  in  Rome  ;  and  was,  in  fact,  given  absolute  power 
in  all  matters  concerning  the  fostering  of  the  arts  and  art  industries. 
This  despotic  power  explains  how  it  was  possible  that  Le  Brun, 
who  notwithstanding  his  brilliant  executive  skill  and  extraordinary 

facility  never  rose  above  the  level  of  mediocrity,  could  impose  his 

32 


250  THE  LOUVRE 

uninspired  personality  upon  every  phase  of  French  artistic  activity 
of  his  time. 

His  enormous  canvases  at  the  Louvre,  which  probably  occupy 
more  space  than  has  been  allotted  to  any  other  painter,  vainly 
endeavour  to  conceal  the  lack  of  real  emotion  and  of  a  central 
motif  by  theatrical  gestures  and  overcrowding.  His  masterpiece 
at  the  Louvre  is  The  Tent  of  Darius  (No.  511),  which  represents 
the  family  of  Darius  imploring  Alexander  the  Great  for  mercy. 
But  even  here  one  feels  the  absence  of  dramatic  inspiration  and 
concentration.  Less  successful  are  the  other  scenes  from  the 
history  of  Alexander :  The  Passage  of  the  Granicus  (No.  509), 
The  Battle  of  Arhela  (No.  510),  Alexander  and  Pmus  (No.  512), 
Alexander  entering  Babylon  (No.  513).  The  whole  series  was 
painted  between  1661  and  1668  for  execution  in  tapestry  and  was 
exhibited  at  the  Salon  in  1673,  the  year  in  which  for  the  first  time 
an  official  catalogue  was  compiled.  Besides  many  scriptural  and 
mythological  subjects,  and  a  few  portraits  from  Le  Brun's  brush, 
there  are  at  the  Louvre  his  decorative  paintings  on  the  ceiling 
of  the  Galerie  d'Apollon  in  which  the  magnificent  centre  panel  was 
added  two  centuries  later  by  Delacroix. 

PIERRE   MIGNARD 

Le  Brun's  successor  in  the  direction  of  the  Academy  and 
the  Gobelin  works,  Pierre  Mignard  (1612-1695),  called  "  Le  Romain  " 
owing  to  his  long  domicile  in  Rome  after  the  completion  of  his 
studies  under  Vouet,  did  not  have  his  precursor's  large  decorative 
faculty  and  sweeping  ease  of  execution.  Yet  the  excessively 
affected  grace  and  the  careful  finish  of  his  pictures,  of  which  The 
Virgin  of  the  Grapes  (No.  628)  is  a  thoroughly  characteristic 
instance,  helped  to  raise  him  to  an  exalted  position  in  the  opinion 
of  his  contemporaries.     To  this  day  the  affected  style  of  prettiness 


THE   SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     251 

of  which  he  was  the  high  priest  is  known  as  "  mignardise."  His 
power  was  altogether  insufficient  for  the  ambitious  decorative 
tasks  he  set  himself  in  emulation  of  Le  Brun.  If  he  has  any  claim 
to  the  esteem  of  posterity,  it  is  for  having  left  the  world  a  portrait 
gallery  of  the  notable  men  and  women  of  his  time — portraits 
which  are  by  no  means  free  from  flattery  and  mannered  grace, 
but  constitute,  nevertheless,  a  valuable  historical  record.  Of  these 
the  Louvre  owns  the  Portrait  of  the  Artist  at  Work  in  his  Studio 
(No.  640) ;  the  Portrait  of  Fran^ise  d'Aubigne,  Marquise  de 
Maintenon  (No.  639) ;  and  the  life-size  group  of  Louis  of  France,  Son 
of  Louis  XIV.,  his  Wife,  and  their  three  Children  (No.  638). 

Colbert  and  Le  Brun  had  succeeded  but  too  well  in  carrying 
out  the  powerful  minister's  ambition  to  direct  French  art  towards 
industrial  and  decorative  aims,  to  train  an  army  of  capable  pro- 
ducers, and  to  place  the  whole  organisation  on  what  may  be 
called  a  business  basis.  The  system  was,  however,  not  favourable 
for  the  growth  of  independent  genius.  With  few  exceptions,  the 
whole  generation  of  painters  that  grew  up  under  Le  Brun's  regime 
are  of  no  significance  to  the  history  of  art.  There  were  among 
them  many  capable  craftsmen,  but  they  only  repeated  in  a  feebler 
way  what  Le  Brun  had  done  on  a  more  imposing  and  dazzling 
scale.  Whole  dynasties  of  painters  arose,  like  the  Boulognes  and 
the  Coypels,  who,  under  official  patronage,  filled  acres  of  canvas  with 
florid,  theatrical  renderings  of  scriptural  subjects,  and  with  the 
bombastic  mock-heroics  of  classic  history  and  mythology  seen 
through  baroque  spectacles. 

LE   BRUN'S   FOLLOWERS 

It  would  be  giving  undue  importance  to  these  painters  of 
the  Louis  xiv.  period  if  we  were  to  go  beyond  a  mere  enumeration 
of  their  leaders   and   their  chief  works   at  the  Louvre.     None  of 


252  THE   LOUVRE 

them  possessed  any  marked  individuality ;  and  most  of  them 
were  linked  together,  not  only  by  similar  aims  and  ambitions,  but 
also  by  family  ties.  Four  members  of  the  Coypel  family  rose  to 
great  eminence  among  their  fellow  -  artists,  and  to  important 
official  positions.  Noel  Coypel  (1628-1707),  the  painter  of  the 
four  historical  compositions,  Solon  defending  his  Laws  before  the 
Athenians  (No.  157),  Ptolemy  PhiladelphtLS giving  the  Jews  their  Freedom 
(No.  158),  Trajan  giving  a  Public  Audience  (No.  159),  and  the  Foresight 
of  Septimus  Severus  (No.  160),  all  of  which  were  originally  executed  for 
the  Council  Chamber  at  Versailles  ;  his  sons  Antoine  Coypel  (1661- 
1722),  whose  best  known  pictures  at  the  Louvre  are  the  Susannah 
and  the  Elders  (No.  169)  and  the  JDemocritos  (No.  174),  which  recalls 
Jordaens  in  its  exuberant  life,  and  Noel  Nicolas  Coypel  (1692-1734), 
whose  goddesses  and  nymphs  already  reflect  the  taste  which  dominated 
the  eighteenth  century  ;  as  well  as  Antoine's  son,  Charles  Antoine 
Coypel  (1694r-l752),  whose  uninspired  art  may  best  be  studied  in 
the  Perseus  delivering  Andromeda  (No.  180). 

The  Triumph  of  Bacchus  (No.  447)  and  The  Annunciation 
(No.  445),  by  Charles  de  La  Fosse  (1636-1716) ;  Hercules  fighting 
the  Centaurs  (No.  53),  by  Bon  Boulogne  (1649-1717);  and  The 
Marriage  of  St.  Catherine  (No.  55),  by  his  brother  Louis  Boulogne 
(1654-1733),  only  serve  to  illustrate  the  mediocrity  of  their  respective 
authors.  The  impersonality  of  Bon  Boulogne's  art  had  at  least 
the  advantage  that  his  teaching  left  free  scope  for  personal 
expression  to  his  many  pupils. 

Even  the  still-life  painting  of  the  "grand  siecle"  which  found 
its  chief  exponent  in  Jean  Baptiste  Monnoyer  (1634-1699),  partakes 
of  the  love  of  pomp  and  display  that  characterises  this  period. 
Gold  and  silver  vases,  precious  stuffs  and  furniture  gener- 
ally accompany  his  flowers,  which  are  painted  without  real 
appreciation  of  their  natural  beauty,  and  in  purely  local  tints 
without   a  hint   of  the   effect  of  each   colour  upon   its   surround- 


THE  SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     253 

ings.     The  Flowers  (No.    648),   in   the    La  Caze   Gallery,   may   be 
mentioned  as  a  typical  example. 


BATTLE   PAINTERS 

The  battle  painter,  Jacques  Courtois  (1621-1676),  called 
Borgognone  and  Le  Bourguignon,  though  born  in  France,  was  so 
completely  under  the  spell  of  the  art  of  Italy,  the  country  where 
he  spent  almost  his  entire  life,  that  he  can  scarcely  be  reckoned 
as  belonging  to  the  French  school.  His  furious  cavalry  melees, 
though  entirely  imaginative  (as  such  confused  encounters  of 
horsemen  piercing  each  other's  ranks  have  never  taken  place  in 
actual  warfare),  are  painted,  like  the  Cavalry  Fight  (No.  151), 
with  a  touch  as  swift  as  it  is  sure  and  expressive,  and  full  of 
exuberant  vitality. 

Joseph  Parrocel  (1678-1704),  who,  during  a  prolonged  visit 
to  Rome  had  benefited  by  Borgognone's  teaching,  could  not,  after 
Ms  return  to  France  in  1675,  escape  the  current  of  thought 
which  dominated  his  time,  and  introduced  the  stage-heroic 
note  into  his  master's  sham  realism.  The  glorification  of  his  king 
is  the  purpose  of  such  pictures  as  The  Passage  of  the  Rhine  by 
Louis  XIV.  (No.  678).  The  chief  interest  is  centred  in  the  richly 
apparelled  group  on  their  prancing  steeds  in  the  foreground. 

JEAN  JOUVENET 

The  Descent  from  the  Cross  (No.  437),  by  Jean  Jouvenet  (1644- 
1717),  which  has  been  honoured  by  a  position  among  the  master- 
pieces in  the  Salon  Carre,  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  estimable 
compositions  produced  in  France  during  this  active  but  uninspired 
century.  Not  only  in  the  general  disposition  of  the  design,  but 
also  in  the  use  of  colour  as  a  constructive  element,  Jouvenet  here 


254  THE  LOUVRE 

acknowledges  his  indebtedness  to  Rubens,  although  he  could  never 
rival  the  luminous  glow  of  the  great  Fleming's  palette.  Most  of 
his  other  pictures  suffer  from  dull  heavy  shadows  and  exaggerated 
expression.  His  strong  and  honest  painting  of  the  kneeling  group 
in  The  Abbe  Delaporte  opiating  at  the  High  Altar  of  Notre-Dame 
(No.  440),  makes  us  regret  that  he  did  not  devote  himself  more 
to  subjects  taken  from  the  life  of  his  time. 

An  artist  who  was  less  tied  to  the  tyranny  of  the  official 
school,  and  imbued  with  a  really  profound  sense  of  the  beautiful, 
was  Jean  Baptiste  Santerre  (1658-1717).  The  delicate  perfection 
of  form  of  the  nude  in  Susannah  and  the  Elders  (No.  835)  approaches 
him  to  David  and  Ingres  at  their  best.  But  this  very  perfection 
carries  the  germ  of  decay,  because  it  is  incapable  of  progress,  and 
stagnation  in  art  signifies  death.  As  regards  his  technique,  Santerre 
was  extremely  careful  and  conscientious.  He  reduced  his  palette 
to  but  five  colours,  and  waited  ten  years  after  the  completion  of 
a  picture  before  putting  on  the  final  coat  of  varnish. 


THE   PORTRAIT  PAINTERS 

The  two  great  portrait  painters  who  flourished  under  the 
"Grand  Monarque,"  Rigaud  and  Largilli^re,  were  preceded  by  an 
artist  to  whom,  perhaps  owing  to  the  relative  scarceness  of  his 
works,  history  has  done  but  scant  justice.  Whilst  the  Louvre 
contains  thirteen  portraits  by  Largilli^re  and  seventeen  by  Rigaud, 
only  two  pictures  stand  to  the  name  of  Claude  Lefebvre  (1632- 
1675) ;  but  his  Portraits  of  a  Master  and  his  Pupil  (No.  529)  and 
the  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  530),  are  distinguished  by  a  penetrating 
insight  into  character  and  an  incisive  vigour  of  style  that  form  a 
striking  contrast  to  the  shallow  bombast  introduced  even  into 
portraiture  by  the  fashionable  painters  to  the  Court.  Lefebvre  has 
been  compared  with  Van  Dyck.     The  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  530) 


THE   SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     255 

has  more  in  common  with  the  brilliant  audacity  of  Frans  Hals's 
brushwork.  Lefebvre  worked  for  some  years  in  London,  where 
he  was  a  favourite  at  the  Court  of  Charles  ii. 

Rigaud's  manner  of  portraiture  has  none  of  these  serious, 
manly  qualities,  but  his  skill  in  arranging  the  sumptuous  accessories 
which  play  so  important  a  part  in  his  portraits, — as  important,  at 
least,  as  the  actual  features  of  the  sitters, — secured  him  the  patronage 
of  the  pomp-loving,  haughty  nobility.  Hyacinthe  Rigaud  y  Ros 
(1659-1743)  was  born  at  Perpignan  and  educated  at  Montpellier 
and  Lyons.  It  was  the  advice  of  Le  Brun  that  saved  him  from 
the  customary  pilgrimage  to  Rome  and  its  inevitable  consequences. 
It  was  Le  Brun  who  recognised  Rigaud's  bent  for  portraiture,  and 
launched  him  on  the  brilliant  career  which  gained  for  him  the 
title  of  "the  French  Van  Dyck."  Rigaud  was  enormously  pro- 
ductive. Between  1681  and  1698  he  is  said  to  have  painted  six 
hundred  and  twenty-three  portraits.  And  he  had  then  another 
forty-five  years  before  him ! 

Rigaud's  best  known  picture  at  the  Louvre  is  the  stately 
portrait  d'apparat  of  King  Louis  XIV.  (No.  781),  a  life-size  full 
length,  in  which  the  spirit  of  the  time,  the  curious  blending  of 
supercilious  haughtiness,  love  of  display,  and  affected  grace  of 
manner,  are  happily  expressed  in  the  monarch's  attitude  and  in 
the  whole  setting.  The  picture  is  signed  and  dated,  "peint  par 
HYACINTHE  RIGAUD,  1701."  The  Same  tendencies  are  to  be  noted  in 
the  full  length  Portrait  of  Bossmt,  Bishop  of  Meaux  (No.  783),  in 
which  it  is  surprising  that  the  prelate's  personality  is  not  com- 
pletely smothered  by  the  splendid  profusion  of  the  accessories. 
His  gifts  appear,  however,  in  a  better  light  in  his  excellent  Portraits 
of  Marie  Serre,  the  Artist's  Mother  (No.  784),  with  the  same  head, 
honestly  and  soberly  painted,  twice  on  the  same  canvas,  once  in 
sharp  profile  looking  to  the  right,  and  again,  facing  this,  a  three- 
quarter  profile  to  the  left.      Wholly  unexpected  is  the   delicacy 


256  THE  LOUVRE 

and  softness  of  one  of  his  pictures  in  the  La  Caze  Room :  the 
Pwtrait  of  the  Duhe  of  Lesdiguihres  as  a  Child  (No.  792).  His 
solitary  excursion  into  the  domain  of  "grand  art"  at  the  Louvre 
is  at  the  same  time  his  last  work :  The  Presentation  in  the  Temple 
(No.  780),  which  in  grouping  and  lighting  owes  much  to  the  study 
of  Rembrandt. 

Nicolas  de  Largilli^re  (1656-1746)  was  born  in  Paris,  but  was 
taken  when  still  an  infant  to  Antwerp,  where  he  became  a  pupil 
of  Goebouw.  From  1674  to  1680  he  worked  in  London  as  an 
assistant  of  Sir  Peter  Lely,  from  whom  He  acquired  the  clever 
tricks  and  mannerisms  in  the  painting  of  draperies  and  the  textures 
of  silks  and  velvets  and  other  materials,  which  were  to  form  so 
important  a  part  of  his  artistic  equipment.  After  Lely's  death 
Largilli^re  went  to  Paris,  where  he  not  only  shared  with  Rigaud 
the  patronage  of  the  Court  as  portrait  painter,  but  secured  many 
important  commissions  for  historical  paintings  which,  perhaps  to 
the  advantage  of  his  fame,  are  now  all  but  forgotten.  Largilliere 
was  not  without  distinction  as  a  brilliant  and  daring  colourist. 
Nor  was  he  incapable,  on  occasion,  of  seizing  the  subtleties  of  his 
sitters'  character.  But  his  praiseworthy  qualities  are  more  than 
balanced  by  his  unpleasant  affectations  and  by  the  baroque 
squirminess  of  his  line.  This  tendency  carried  him  to  such  insuffer- 
able excesses  as  the  conglomeration  of  lumpy  bosses  which  does 
duty  for  a  hand  in  his  Portrait  of  M.  Du  Vaucel  (No.  484),  in  the 
La  Caze  Room. 

His  boastful  skill  in  the  management  of  the  satins  and 
velvets  in  the  overrated  portrait  group  of  Largilliere  with  his  Wife 
and  Daughter  in  a  Garden  (No.  491),  cannot  atone  for  the  singularly 
unfortunate  and  clumsy  composition,  and  for  the  self-conscious 
affectation  of  each  individual  pose.  More  satisfactory,  in  spite  of 
the  superabundance  of  accessories  and  outward  pomp,  which  in 
this  case  is  a  fitting  attribute  to  the  character  of  the  sitter,  is  the 


p 


THE  SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL  257 

Portrait  of  Charles  Le  Brim,  First  Painter  to  King  Louis  XIV. 
(No.  482),  who  is  depicted  in  a  colossal  wig,  seated  before  an 
easel,  and  wearing  a  superbly  painted  red  velvet  cloak. 


LANDSCAPE   PAINTERS 

It  almost  goes  without  saying  that  landscape  art,  which,  even 
in  its  most  artificial  and  ** classic"  phase  is  inspired  by  the  love 
and  study  of  nature,  was  sadly  neglected  in  so  artificial  an  age. 
Among  its  leading  exponents  must  be  mentioned  the  two  Patels, 
father  and  son,  of  whose  life  we  have  but  scant  knowledge,  and 
whose  pictures  resemble  one  another's  so  closely  that  it  is  often 
difficult  to  determine  which  is  by  Pierre  Patel,  the  father  (1620?- 
1676),  and  which  by  Pierre  Antoine  Patel,  the  son  (1648-1708), 
especially  as  both  adopted  the  signature,  "  p.  patel."  In  the  case 
of  the  older  artist's  The  Exposure  of  Moses  on  the  Nile  (No.  680), 
and  Moses  burying  the  Egyptian  whom  he  had  Slain  (No.  681),  and 
his  son's  four  landscapes  representing  the  months,  January  (No.  684), 
April  (No.  685),  August  (No.  686),  and  September  (No.  687),  all 
doubts  are  set  aside  by  the  dates  which  accompany  the  signature. 
Both  artists  were  close  followers  of  Claude  Lorrain,  although  their 
precise  technique  suggests  the  influence  of  Adam  Elsheimer. 

A  truer  perception  of  nature  came  to  France  from  the  North, 
whence,  indeed,  throughout  the  history  of  French  painting  vitality 
was  infused  into  an  art  that  was  cramped  by  officially  imposed 
canons  of  Italian  perfection.  As  far  back  as  the  time  of  Le  Brun, 
F^libien  and  Roger  de  Piles  had  begun  in  the  field  of  literary 
polemics  the  long  struggle  between  the  Poussinistes  and  Mubenistes, 
the  adherents  of  an  art  dominated  by  design  and  perfect  drawing, 
against  the  partisans  of  colour  as  a  vital  element.  During  the 
whole  seventeenth  century  the  Poussinistes,  who  commanded  all 
the  official  support,  held  the  field,  though  the  Netherlandish  strain 

33 


258  THE  LOUVRE 

was  represented  by  some  of  the  finest  painters  of  that  period,  like 
the  brothers  Le  Nain,  C.  Lefebvre,  and  Philippe  de  Champaigne. 
In  the  eighteenth  century  the  Northern  influence  became  supreme 
through  Watteau  and  Chardin  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the 
other  through  Boucher  and  Fragonard,  both  of  whom  were  power- 
fully influenced  by  the  study  of  Rubens's  works. 


DESPORTES 

In  landscape  the  healthy  opposition  to  the  prevailing  classic 
style  appears  first  in  the  work  of  the  Flemish  battle  painter  Van 
der  Meulen,  whose  backgrounds,  sketched  on  the  spot,  show  a 
fine  feeling  for  aerial  perspective  and  atmospheric  efiects.  But  his 
example  apparently  attracted  no  followers.  Though  not,  strictly 
speaking,  a  landscape  painter,  Fran9ois  Desportes  (1661-1743),  who 
owed  less  to  his  early  training  under  Nicasius,  a  third-rate  Fleming, 
than  to  his  habit  of  using  his  own  eyes  and  studying  nature  direct, 
treated  landscape  with  similar  freedom  in  the  backgi-ounds  to  his 
portraits  and  pictures  of  the  chase.  In  his  paintings  of  animals, 
dead  or  alive,  limp  bodies  of  hares  and  birds  arranged  as  still-life 
with  flowers  and  fruits,  or  in  a  very  frenzy  of  movement  in  his 
hunting  pieces,  he  endeavours  to  emulate  Snyders,  without  quite 
rivalling  the  Flemish  master.  Of  his  twenty-five  pictures  at  the 
Louvre,  twenty-three  (Nos.  225-248)  belong  to  this  genre,  but  not 
all  of  them  are  actually  exhibited.  The  Portrait  of  a  Huntsman 
(No.  224),  and  the  Portrait  of  the  Artist  (No.  249)  seated  under  a 
tree,  holding  a  gun  in  his  right,  and  caressing  with  his  left  hand 
a  hound  whose  paw  is  resting  on  a  pile  of  dead  game,  serve  to 
prove  that  he  knew  how  to  manage  portraiture  with  the  same 
bold,  frank  spirit  and  summary  breadth.  He  was  particularly 
happy  in  rendering,  without  laboured  detail,  the  varying  textures 
of  fur  and  plumage. 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     259 

Desportes's  only  successful  rival  as  a  painter  of  animals  and 
hunting  scenes  was  Jean  Baptiste  Oudry  (1686-1755).  How  closely 
his  style  resembled  that  of  the  elder  painter  is  to  be  seen  from  his 
Wolf  Hunt  (No.  667),  the  Bog  watching  Dead  Game  (No.  668),  and 
one  or  two  similar  pieces  at  the  Louvre.  Oudry  was  first  taught 
by  his  father,  and  subsequently  by  Largilli^re,  who  encouraged 
him  in  the  painting  of  still-life,  and  directed  his  study  particularly 
to  the  observation  of  tone  values  and  of  the  interchange  of  colour 
that  takes  place  between  objects  in  close  proximity  to  each  other. 
In  1734,  Oudry  was  appointed  Director  of  the  Beauvais  Tapestry 
Works,  which  took  a  new  lease  of  life  under  his  able  management. 
It  was  he  who  supplied  the  designs  for  the  Fables  of  La  Fontaine, 
which  figure  so  frequently  in  the  tapestries  woven  at  that  great 
establishment.  Perhaps  his  most  interesting  picture  at  the  Louvre 
is  the  large  landscape  The  Farm  (No.  670),  signed  and  dated  1750, 
one  of  the  earliest  examples  in  French  art  of  a  rustic  scene  painted 
for  its  own  sake,  without  any  attempt  at  ennobling  the  landscape 
by  forcing  it  into  a  formal  arrangement. 


GENRE   PAINTERS 

It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  tendencies  displayed  by 
these  masters,  that  towards  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  an  increasing  number  of 
artists  preferred  to  devote  their  talent  to  recording  the  life  of  their 
own  days  to  the  endless  repetition  of  the  "  grand  -  manner " 
subjects  which  had  occupied  the  energy  of  the  preceding  genera- 
tions. Thus  Jean  Alexis  Grimou  (1678-1740),  who  was  Swiss  by 
birth  and  entirely  self- trained,  introduced  into  French  art  the 
drinking  scenes  beloved  of  the  Flemish  masters.  From  his 
painting  of  A  Drinker  (No.  385)  and  the  two  Portraits  of  Young 
Soldiers  (Nos.  386  and  387),  it  may  be  seen  how  little  he  was  in 


260  THE  LOUVRE 

sympathy  with  the  official  art  of  his  time ;  this  is  scarcely  to  be 
wondered  at,  since,  instead  of  undergoing  the  customary  course 
of  academic  training,  he  had  formed  his  style  by  copying  the 
works  of  Rembrandt  and  other  Northern  masters. 

Pierre  Subleyras  (1699-1749)  was  not  quite  so  emancipated. 
In  his  large  religious  compositions  he  still  follows  the  affectations 
of  the  grand  style.  His  chief  work  of  this  kind  is  the  Mass  of 
St.  Basil,  at  Sta.  Maria  degli  Angeli  in  Rome,  of  which  No.  857  at 
the  Louvre  is  a  reduced  version.  Of  far  more  artistic  significance 
are  his  small  genre  pieces,  in  which  he  attains  to  a  rich  quality 
of  pigment  and  a  justice  of  tone-values  unique  in  French  painting 
of  his  period.  Subleyras  is  said  to  have  been  of  Spanish  descent ; 
and  there  are  in  his  scenes  from  La  Fontaine's  "  Fables  " — notably 
in  The  Hermit  (No.  862) — clear  indications  of  his  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  Spanish  art.  The  best  of  all  his  pictures  at  the  Louvre  is 
The  Falcon  (No.  861),  which,  apart  from  its  general  quality  of  tone, 
contains  some  still-life  passages  worthy  of  the  brush  of  Chardin. 

RAOUX  AND  DE  TROY 

Just  as  Subleyras  should  be  judged  by  his  genre  scenes  rather 
than  by  his  scriptural  subjects,  so  Jean  Raoux's  (1677-1734)  real 
significance  lies  in  the  intimate  note  he  introduced  into  his  fancy 
portraits,  and  not  in  his  moderately  successful  excursions  into 
mythology,  like  the  Telemachus  relating  his  Adventures  to  Calypso,  at 
the  Louvre  (No.  764).  The  Ymin^  Woman  reading  a  Letter  (No.  765), 
in  the  La  Caze  Room,  is  perhaps  the  most  charming  of  many  similar 
pictures  from  his  brush.  In  sentiment  it  belongs  entirely  to  the 
amorous  century  of  Louis  xv.,  which  was  to  produce  a  Fragonard 
and  a  Greuze.  Raoux  was  one  of  the  first  French  painters  of 
contemporary  life.  Brought  up  in  the  old  tradition,  he  was  in  his 
last  years  influenced  by  the  personality  of  the  great  Watteau. 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     261 

If  Raoux  was  the  somewhat  sentimental  painter  of  bourgeois 
life,  Jean  Fran9ois  de  Troy  (1679-1752)  played  not  infrequently  the 
chronicler  of  the  elegant  life  of  the  leisured  classes.  Unfortunately 
this  interesting  phase  of  his  art  is  not  represented  at  the  Louvre, 
which,  besides  the  three  Portraits  (Nos.  886-888)  in  the  La  Caze 
collection,  contains  two  of  his  famous  designs  for  tapestry,  re- 
presenting scenes  from  the  History  of  Esther  (Nos.  884r-885) ;  and  his 
large  historical  painting,  The  First  Chapter  of  the  Order  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  held  by  Henri  IV.  in  1595  (No.  883). 


WATTEAU 

The  master  who  was  to  break  definitely  with  the  cold,  majestic, 
uninspired  art  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  who  in  leading 
French  painting  into  new  paths  reached  the  very  limits  of  poetic 
expressiveness  imposed  by  material  means,  was  Antoine  Watteau 
(1684-1721).  Born  at  Valenciennes  six  years  before  that  city 
became  French  through  the  peace  of  Nymwegen,  Watteau,  the  son 
of  a  poor  Flemish  tiler,  was  French,  as  it  were,  by  accident  only.  In 
his  early  years,  when  he  studied  in  his  native  town  under  G^rin,  a 
mediocre  local  painter,  he  must  have  had  occasion  to  become  closely 
acquainted  with  the  paintings  of  the  Flemish  masters.  On  the 
death  of  G^rin,  in  1702,  he  went  to  Paris,  where  he  became  assistant 
to  the  scene-painter  Metayer.  Watteau  suffered  dire  poverty,  and 
completely  undermined  his  health  through  privation  before  his 
talent  attracted  the  attention  of  his  next  master,  Claude  Gillot,  with 
whom  he  stayed  until  1708,  when  he  became  assistant  to  Claude 
Audran,  a  decorative  artist  of  great  repute  and  Keeper  of  the 
Luxembourg  collections.  At  the  Luxembourg  Palace  he  was 
enabled  to  study  the  masterpieces  of  Rubens,  Titian,  and  Paolo 
Veronese,  from  which  he  benefited  as  much  as  from  his  work  from 
nature  in  the  Luxembourg  gardens. 


262  THE  LOUVRE 

It  was  perhaps  fortunate  that  he  failed  in  the  competition 
for  the  Prix  de  Rome  in  1709,  and  was  dissuaded  from  going  to 
Italy.  He  was  received  by  the  Academy  in  1717,  when  he 
painted  his  "  diploma  picture,"  The  Embarkation  for  the  Island  of 
Cythera  (No.  982,  Plate  XXXIX.),  which  may  be  considered  an 
epitome  of  his  art.  Sketchy  as  it  is,  this  picture,  which  he 
painted  in  seven  days,  exceeds  in  poetic  charm  and  in  the 
beauty  of  its  entrancing  sparkle  of  mellow  tones  the  more 
highly  finished  later  version  in  the  German  Emperor's  coUectioD. 
It  is  the  most  striking  instance  of  a  purely  imaginary  scene 
of  unworldly  happiness,  tinged  with  that  peculiarly  Watteauesque 
vague  melancholy,  —  the  consumptive's  maladie  de  I'inflni  to 
which  M,  Mauclair  has  drawn  attention, — represented  with  such 
absolute  atmospheric  truth  as  to  make  it  appear  an  incompar- 
ably beautiful  reality.  Technically,  this  picture,  like  L' Indifferent 
(No.  984)  and  La  Finette  (No.  985)  in  the  La  Caze  Room, 
embodies  in  germ  the  theories  which  in  the  second  half  of 
the  next  century  were  scientifically  worked  out  by  the  French 
Impressionists. 

Some  time  in  1719  or  1720,  Watteau  was  in  England  to  consult 
a  famous  physician.  But  his  illness  took  a  turn  for  the  worse,  and 
he  had  to  return  to  his  native  country.  After  six  months  spent  in 
Paris,  he  went  to  live  at  Nogent-sur-Marne,  where  he  died  on 
July  18,  1721.  Watteau's  influence  upon  eighteenth-century  art 
was  prodigious  ;  but  his  work  remained  unapproached  by  any 
of  his  followers  and  imitators,  who  too  often  sacrificed  artistic 
considerations  to  a  desire  to  please  the  lascivious  tastes  of 
a  corrupt,  pleasure-loving  society.  The  Faux  Pas  (No.  989)  is 
one  of  the  rare  instances  where  Watteau  allowed  a  certain 
suggestiveness  to  enter  into  his  work ;  but  even  here  "  the 
smallness  of  the  subject  is  swallowed  up  in  the  greatness  of  the 
painting," 


PLATE  XXXIX.— ANTOINE  WATTEAU 

(1684-1721) 

FRENCH  SCHOOL 

No.  982.— THE  EMBARKATION  FOR  THE  ISLAND  OF  CYTHERA 

(L'Erabarquement  pour  Cythere) 

On  a  mound  in  the  foreground,  under  a  group  of  trees  on  the  riglit,  by  a  garlanded  terminal  figure  of 
Venus,  are  .seated  a  young  woman  and  a  pilgrim  ;  at  their  feet  is  Cupid,  whcse  wings  are  covered  by  a  black  cape. 
To  the  left  a  cavalier  helps  a  young  woman  to  rise  from  the  lawn.  In  the  centre  of  the  composition  another 
pilgrim  leads  away  his  partner,  encircling  her  waist  with  his  arm.  On  the  left,  in  the  middle  distance,  is 
a  procession  of  lovers  in  pairs  moving  towards  a  gilt  barge  with  a  chimera  at  the  prow  and  two  semi-nude 
rowers.  Cupids  are  floating  in  the  air  above  the  barge.  In  the  background  a  lake  surrounded  by  bluish 
mountains. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

4  ft.  2  in.  X  6  ft.  3h  in.     (1-27  x  1-92.) 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     263 

THE  WATTEAUS  IN   THE  LA  GAZE   GALLERY 

It  is  a  strange  fact  that  but  for  the  generosity  of  La  Gaze,  The 
Embarkation  would  be  the  only  example  at  the  Louvre  of  the 
greatest  master  produced  by  France.  The  reason  for  this  extra- 
ordinary neglect  may  be  found  in  the  scant  esteem  in  which 
Watteau  was  held  until  his  eclipsed  fame  was  resuscitated  by  the 
de  Goncourts.  The  superb  life-size  painting  of  Gilles  (No.  983), 
one  of  ten  pictures  by  or  attributed  to  Watteau  in  the  La  Gaze 
collection,  was  sold  at  public  auction  in  1826  for  £26 ;  whilst 
L' Indifferent  and  La  Finette  together  realised  the  sum  of  £19  at 
the  Marquis  de  Menars'  sale !  Of  the  eleven  pictures  in  the  La 
Gaze  collection  that  were  originally  attributed  to  Watteau, 
L'Escamoteur  (No.  622a,  formerly  No.  987)  is  now  acknowledged 
to  be  by  his  imitator  Philippe  Mercier  (1689-1760),  who  was 
born  in  Berlin  of  French  parents,  and  spent  the  most  productive 
years  of  his  life  in  London,  where  he  died  in  1760.  The  still- 
life  piece  Dead  Game  (No.  993),  officially  assigned  to  Watteau, 
has  rightly  been  doubted ;  but  the  aspersions  thrown  upon  the 
authenticity  of  the  delicious  Pastoral  (No.  992)  do  not  seem 
sufficiently  justified.  The  profound  influence  of  Rubens  upon 
Watteau's  art  is  nowhere  more  pronounced  than  in  the  sketch 
The  Judgment  of  Paris  (No.  988),  and  in  the  beautiful  oval  com- 
position Jupiter  and  Antiope  (No.  991),  which  has,  however,  also 
much  in  common  with  Titian.  The  superb  nude  figure  symbolising 
Autumn  (No.  990),  and  another  fete  galante,  entitled  Gay  GoTupany 
in  a  Park  (No.  986),  are  no  less  creditable  to  the  master's  genius. 


WATTEAU'S   FOLLOWERS 

Although  Watteau  indicated  the  direction  that  French  art  was 
to  follow  in  a  century  when  it  had  to  cater  no  longer  for  the  state- 


264  THE   LOUVRE 

apartment  but  for  the  boudoir,  he  left  no  follower  worthy  to  carry 
on  his  tradition.  Nicolas  Lancret  (1690-1743),  who  had  studied 
under  Dulin  and  Gillot,  based  his  style  upon  Watteau,  whom  he 
almost  rivalled  as  a  draughtsman.  But  he  was  an  inferior  colourist, 
and  wholly  lacking  in  poetic  inspiration.  One  has  only  to  compare 
his  Actors  of  the  Italian  Comedy  (No.  470)  with  Watteau's  Gilles 
(No.  983),  or  his  Music  Lesson  (No.  468)  and  Innocence  (No.  469) 
with  their  prototypes  created  by  that  master,  to  realise  the  inferi- 
ority of  these  thin,  vulgarised  versions  of  Watteau  subjects. 

Jean  Baptiste  Pater  (1695-1736),  who,  like  Watteau,  was  born 
at  Valenciennes,  became  a  pupil  of  his  fellow-townsman  in  Paris, 
and  benefited  considerably  by  his  guidance.  Although  inferior  as  a 
draughtsman  to  Lancret,  whom  he  did  not  rival  either  in  origin- 
ality, he  far  surpassed  him  as  a  colourist.  With  Lancret,  colour  was 
generally  an  afterthought ;  with  Pater,  it  entered  into  the  primary 
conception  of  the  picture.  His  Academy  diploma  piece,  the  F^ 
Champetre  (No.  689),  is  painted  in  the  Watteau  manner  with  true 
pictorial  feeling,  even  if  it  lacks  the  master's  precious,  jewel-like 
quality  of  pigment.  The  Fete  Champetre  (No.  203),  by  Bonaventure 
Debar  (1700-1729),  holds  promise  of  a  considerable  talent  in  a 
similar  direction,  cut  short  by  a  premature  death. 


THE  VAN  LOO   FAMILY 

No  fewer  than  five  members  of  the  Flemish  Van  Loo  family, 
which  flourished  in  France  fi:om  about  1660  until  the  death  of 
Julius  Caesar  Van  Loo  in  1821,  are  represented  in  the  Louvre 
collection.  The  most  distinguished  among  them  were  Louis  Van 
Loo's  sons,  Jean  -  Baptiste  and  Charles  Andr^,  better  known  as 
Carle.  Both  of  them  were  brought  up  in  the  academic  tradition ; 
but  their  Flemish  blood  and  the  taste  of  a  time  that  had  seen  the 
master- work  of  Watteau,  gave  their  art  more  vigour  and  sensuousness 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     265 

than  is  to  be  found  in  the  paintings  of  their  academic  precursors. 
Still  it  is  unnecessary  to  linger  over  their  historical  and  mythological 
compositions.  The  picture  which  does  most  credit  to  Carle  Van 
Loo  (1705-1765)  is  The  Hunt  Picnic  (No.  899),  which,  in  spite  of  a 
certain  crudeness  of  colour,  attracts  by  the  science  of  the  com- 
position, the  Watteau  feeling  of  the  landscape  background,  and  by 
its  fascinating  reality  as  a  record  of  contemporary  life  among  the 
leisured,  pleasure-loving  classes. 

Fran9ois  Le  Moine  (1688-1737)  constitutes  a  link  between  the 
decorative  style  of  the  preceding  generation,  which  had  become 
dull  and  ponderous,  and  the  art  of  Watteau  and  his  followers.  In 
this  position  he  heralds  his  great  pupil  Fran9ois  Boucher,  whose 
characteristics,  deprived  of  his  elegant  grace  and  suave  rhythm  of 
design,  are  more  than  hinted  at  in  the  Juno,  Iris  and  Flora  (No.  536). 
The  Olympus  (No.  535),  the  sketch  for  a  ceiling,  recalls  in  its 
joyful  decorative  colour  and  bravura  of  brushwork  the  art  of 
Tiepolo  and  Ricci. 

FRANgOIS   BOUCHER 

Whilst  such  painters  as  Jean  Restout  (1692-1768)  still 
continued  to  follow  the  tradition  of  the  Bolognese  eclectics,  as  may 
be  seen  in  his  Herminia  and  the  Shepherd  (No.  775),  the  art  of  the 
Louis  XV.  period  was  given  its  final  stamp  by  Fran9ois  Boucher 
(1703-1770).  This  favourite  of  Mme.  de  Pompadour,  having  gained 
the  Prix  de  Rome  in  1723,  went  to  Italy  in  1727,  whence  he 
returned  to  Paris  four  years  later.  At  the  age  of  thirty  his 
Rinaldo  and  Armida  (No.  38a)  caused  him  to  be  "■  received "  by  the 
Academy — the  first  of  many  honours  that  fell  to  his  share,  as  he 
became  in  turn  First  Painter  to  the  King,  Director  of  the  Academy, 
and  Inspector  of  the  Beauvais  Tapestry  Manufactory.  He  was  the 
ideal  painter  of  the  age  that  was  dominated  by  the  personality  of 
the  Pompadour,  who  kept  him  employed  with  commissions  for  the 

34 


266  THE  LOUVRE 

decoration  of  her  boudoir.  Boucher  was  the  true  child  of  his 
time— licentious,  pleasure-loving,  light-hearted,  and  without  moral 
scruples.  The  astonishing  thing  is  that  his  pursuit  of  pleasure 
did  not  affect  his  enormous  productivity.  His  art  is  in  perfect 
harmony  with  his  character — frankly  sensual,  exuberant,  and  unre- 
liable ;  at  times  rising  to  superb  decorative  splendour  of  the  airy, 
graceful  type  demanded  by  his  patrons,  and  then  again  careless 
to  the  point  of  slovenliness. 

Boucher  was  not  a  great  colourist  in  the  sense  in  which  this 
term  is  applied  to  masters  like  Titian  or  Rubens.  Indeed,  more 
often  than  not  his  application  of  purely  local  colours  unaffected  by 
their  surroundings  is  apt  to  result  in  the  crudeness  noticeable 
in  his  Pastoral  (No.  33),  and  in  the  domestic  scene  called  The 
Breakfast  (No.  50a).  Other  pictures  like  the  Pastmal  (No.  34)  owe 
their  present  tapestry-like  mellowness  to  the  fading  of  the  pig- 
ments. But  it  would  be  unfair  to  disres^ard  the  artist's  intention 
and  to  judge  his  capacity  as  a  colourist  from  the  present  appear- 
ance of  his  works  at  the  Louvre  or  in  their  usual  environment 
in  a  public  gallery.  They  were  intended  for  definite  decorative 
purposes,  and  in  their  proper  Louis  xv.  setting  fulfilled  their 
function  in  admirable  fashion.  Few  artists  excelled  Boucher  in 
rhythmic  harmony  of  composition,  although  it  must  be  confessed 
that  his  emphatic  insistence  on  triangular  design  is  apt  to  become 
monotonous.  This  predilection  is  to  be  noted  in  the  Rinaldo  and 
Armida  (No.  38a),  Venus  disarming  Cupid  (No.  44),  The  Rape  of 
Europa  (No.  39),  the  Pastorals  (Nos.  33,  34,  and  35),  Vulcan  presenting 
Arms  to  Venv^  (No.  36,  Plate  XL.),  and,  indeed,  in  the  vast  majority 
of  his  twenty-two  exhibited  pictures  at  the  Louvre.  His  mastery 
in  flesh  painting  is  best  illustrated  by  the  more  unconventionally 
designed  Diana  leaving  the  Bath  (No.  30),  and  the  brilliant  sketch  of 
The  Three  Graces  (No.  47)  in  the  La  Caze  Room.  Among  his  other 
masterpieces   at  the   Louvre,   Venus  demanding  Arms  from    Vulcan 


PLATE  XL.— FEANQOIS  BOUCHER 

(1703-1770) 

FRENCH  SCHOOL 

No.  36.— VULCAN  PRESENTING  ARMS  TO  VENUS 

(Vulcain  pr&entant  4  Venus  des  Amies  pour  Enee) 

On  the  right,  Vulcan,  seated  on  a  tiger-skin  with  his  left  elbow  resting  on  an  anvil,  presents  a  sword 
to  Venus,  who,  supported  by  a  nympli,  is  resting  on  a  cloud  in  the  centre  of  the  composition.  In  the 
background,  over  the  head  of  Vulcan,  are  two  cupids  carrying  a  helmet  with  a  blue  plume ;  between  them 
and  Venus,  two  nymphs  on  clouds  under  a  rock.  Cupids  and  doves  are  fluttering  around  the  central  group. 
In  the  foreground,  on  the  left,  are  the  chariot  of  Venus,  doves,  and  cupids,  one  of  whom,  immediately  below 
the  goddess,  is  holding  a  garland  of  white  roses. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

Signed  : — "f.  bouchbb." 

10  ft.  6  in.  X  10  ft.  6  in.     (3-20  x  3-20.) 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     267 

(No.  31),  which  like  No.  36  was  designed  for  execution  in  tapestry, 
and  the  charming  Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman  (No.  50),  deserve 
special  attention.  It  is  unfortunate  that  they  are  not  hung  in 
the  rooms  that  contain  the  magnificent  furniture  of  the  period, 
instead  of  being  piled  sky-high  among  pictures  that  seem  to  be 
primarily  regarded  by  the  officials  as  mere  museum  specimens  of 
the  art  of  painting.  Boucher  is  better  hung,  and  so  may  be  much 
more  effectively  studied  in  the  Wallace  collection  in  London. 

A  little  drier  in  touch  than  Boucher's  nudes,  and  considerably 
less  coherent  in  design,  but  still  painted  with  remarkable  ability,  are 
the  figures  of  the  goddess  and  her  attendants  in  The  Triumphs  of 
Amphitrite  (No.  863),  by  Boucher's  contemporary,  Hugues  Taraval 
(1728-1785). 

SIMEON  CHARDIN 

If  Boucher  and  the  army  of  painters  of  fetes  galantes  and 
boudoir  decorations  reflect  the  tastes  of  the  corrupt  society  of 
Louis  XV. 's  age,  Jean-Baptiste  Simeon  Chardin  (1699-1779)  is  the 
painter  par  excellence  of  the  lower  bourgeoisie.  His  was  an  un- 
eventful, colourless  life  of  unremitting  work  after  the  completion  of 
his  studies  under  Gazes  and  N.  N.  Coypel.  He  never  went  to  Rome  ; 
he  never  sought  after  distinction  in  the  "  grand  manner  "  ;  he  never 
hankered  after  Court  patronage.  He  simply  devoted  himself  to 
recording  with  the  utmost  technical  perfection  the  peaceful  and 
domestic  life  of  the  lower  middle  class,  to  which  he  himself  belonged, 
with  all  his  tastes  and  habits  of  life,  and  to  the  painting  of  still-life, 
in  which  branch  of  art  he  stands  without  a  rival.  There  are  among 
his  thirty-two  pictures  at  the  Louvre  twenty  paintings  of  Still-life 
(Nos.  89,  90,  94,  95,  96,  98,  100,  105-116,  and  the  doubtful  No.  118), 
all  equally  remarkable  for  their  inimitable  skill  in  the  rendering 
of  the  most  varied  textures  and  reflections ;  for  subtle  observation 
of  the  mutual  effect  of  coloured  objects  upon  each  other  through 


268  THE  LOUVRE 

the  interchange  of  coloured  rays  ;  and,  above  all,  for  that  "  sense 
of  intimacy,  of  life  behind  the  scene,"  with  which  he  knew  how 
to  invest  even  inanimate  objects. 

This  same  sense  of  intimacy  and  of  absolute  pictorial  unity  is 
also  the  great  merit  of  his  domestic  genre  pieces,  into  which  enters, 
in  addition,  the  element  of  spiritual  unity,  of  the  absorption  of  each 
person  in  his  or  her  occupation.  In  the  deservedly  famous  Grcme 
before  Meat,  at  the  Hermitage  in  St.  Petersburg,  of  which  the  Louvre 
owns  two  admirable  replicas  (No.  92,  Plate  XLI.,  and  No.  93),  the 
most  casual  observer  cannot  fail  to  notice  that  intimate  bond 
between  the  mother  and  the  two  children,  which  gives  the  im- 
pression of  a  scene  accidentally  overlooked,  without  anybody  being 
aware  of  the  intruder's  presence.  La  Mere  laborieuse  (No.  91), 
La  Pourvoyeuse  (No.  99),  and  even  the  cat  in  the  still-life  piece  The 
Cat  in  the  Larder  (No.  89),  are  equally  innocent  of  "posing,"  and 
absorbed  in  their  respective  occupations.  The  Boy  with  the  Top 
(No.  90a)  and  the  Young  Man  with  the  Violin  (No.  90b),  under  which 
titles  we  have  the  portraits  of  the  two  children  of  the  jeweller 
Charles  Godefroy,  were  bought  by  the  Louvre  in  1907  for  £14,000. 
These  two  pictures  and  the  Castle  of  Cards  (No.  103)  are  sufficient 
to  establish  Chardin's  supremacy  in  child  portraiture. 

FRAGONARD 

Chardin  for  but  a  few  months,  and  Boucher  for  two  years,  were 
the  masters  who  taught  Jean  Honore  Fragonard  (1732-1806)  before, 
having  gained  the  Prix  de  Rome  in  1752  and  worked  three  years 
under  Van  Loo,  he  set  out  for  Rome,  where  under  Natoire's  guidance 
he  applied  himself  to  the  copying  of  old  masters.  More  important 
for  the  formation  of  his  style  were  the  sketches  he  made  in  the 
company  of  his  friend  Hubert  Robert  in  the  romantic  gardens  of 
the  Villa  d'Este,  and  the  deep  impression  created  upon  his  mind  by 


PLATE  XLL— JEAN-BAPTISTE  SIMfiON  CHARDIN 

(1699-1779) 

FKENCH  SCHOOL 

No.  92.— GRACE  BEFORE  MEAT 

(Le  B&^dicit6) 

In  the  centre  of  a  room,  by  a  round  table  with  a  white  tablecloth,  stands  a  woman,  about  to  pour  the 
soup  from  a  saucepan  into  a  plate.  She  turns  her  head  to  the  left  towards  her  two  little  girls,  who, 
with  folded  hands,  are  saying  grace.  A  drum  is  suspended  from  the  back  of  the  chair  on  which  the  younger 
child  is  sitting.  In  the  background,  on  the  left,  a  dresser  with  pewter  and  crockery  ;  on  the  right,  a  shelf 
with  a  canister,  a  bowl,  and  some  bottles. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

1  ft.  7i  in.  X  1  ft.  3i  in.     (0-49  x  0-41.) 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     269 

Tiepolo's  decorative  paintings  in  Venice,  which  city  he  visited  before 
his  return  to  Paris  in  1761.  He  scored  his  first  gi-eat  success  in  1765 
with  the  large  and  still  somewhat  academic  composition  Coresus  and 
Calirrho'e  (No.  290),  which  was  bought  by  Louis  xv.  for  24,000  livres 
for  reproduction  at  his  tapestry  works. 

Patronised  by  Mme.  du  Barry,  the  dancer  Marie  Guimard,  and 
other  priestesses  of  Venus,  Fragonard  now  devoted  his  exceptionally 
facile  and  spontaneous  talent  to  subjects  that  in  licentious  frivolity, 
voluptuousness,  and  suggestiveness  had  never  been  equalled  even 
by  his  master  Boucher.  It  is  only  his  marvellous  technique, 
ranging  from  the  liquid  transparency  of  his  swift  oil  sketches  to 
the  rich  luminous  impasto  of  the  Sleeping  Baccharde  (No.  294)  ; 
from  the  elegant  arabesque  of  the  Bcdhing  Women  (No.  293),  so 
full  ofjoie  de  vivre  and  youthful  fire,  to  the  almost  brutal  strength 
of  the  portrait  of  a  writer  or  poet,  known  under  the  title  of  Inspira- 
tion (No.  298).  But  in  all  these,  as  well  as  in  the  charming  Music 
Lesson  (No.  291,  Plate  XLII.),  The  Student  (No.  297)  and  the  Young 
Woman  (No.  300),  Fragonard  proves  himself  one  of  the  greatest 
colourists  produced  by  the  French  School.  It  was  Fragonard's  sad 
fate  to  outlive  his  fame,  to  witness  the  collapse  of  the  ancient 
regime  and  the  triumph  of  his  pupil  David's  classicism,  and  to  die 
in  obscurity  and  neglect. 

GREUZE 

Twenty -three  paintings  represent  at  the  Louvre  the  art  of  Jean- 
Baptiste  Greuze  (1725-1805),  who  trod  the  safe  path  of  flattering 
the  taste  of  the  multitude  by  the  mawkish  sentimentality  of  his 
genre-pieces  and  the  prettiness  and  half-concealed  sensuality  of 
his  "  fancy  portraits "  of  young  women,  which  in  their  suggestive- 
ness are  perhaps  more  insidious  than  the  frank  improprieties  of 
Boucher  and  Fragonard.  The  sentimental  and  melodramatic  side 
of  Greuze's  art  is   strikingly  revealed  in  The    Village  Engagement 


270  THE  LOUVRE 

(No.  369),  in  The  Paternal  Curse  (No.  370),  and  in  The  Punished  Son 
(No.  371),  which  aroused  the  enthusiasm  of  that  singularly  misguided 
critic  Diderot.  But  it  is  the  painting  of  pictures  like  The  Broken 
Pitcher  (No.  372,  Plate  XLIII.),  The  Milkmaid  (No.  372a),  and  The 
Dead  Bird  (No.  372c  ;  a  replica  of  the  picture  in  the  Scottish  National 
Gallery),  that  has  made  him  the  idol  of  a  certain  undiscriminating 
section  of  the  public,  and  established  him  among  the  world's  most 
popular  painters. 

PORTRAIT  PAINTERS 

The  leading  position  among  the  portrait  painters  of  Louis  xv.'s 
corrupt  Court  was  occupied  by  Jean  Marc  Nattier  (1685-1766),  who 
was  a  good  colourist,  but  was  utterly  lacking  in  sincerity,  and 
placed  his  able  brush  at  the  service  of  the  basest  flattery.  He  has 
left  a  whole  gallery  of  Court  beauties  posing  as,  and  invested  with 
the  attributes  of,  Greek  goddesses  and  allegorical  personifications 
in  the  manner  of  the  group  of  Mdlle.  de  Lambesc  and  the  Comte  de 
Brienne  (No.  659)  as  Minerva  preparing  the  hero  for  warlike  exploits. 
The  Magdalen  (No.  657)  is  probably  another  contemporary  portrait 
in  fancy  costume.  His  best  picture  at  the  Louvre  is  the  Portrait 
of  a  Young  Woman  (No.  661a). 

rran9ois  Hubert  Drouais  (1725-1775),  the  painter  of  the  group 
of  the  Comte  d'Artois  (afterwards  Charles  X.)  and  Madame  Clotilde, 
afterwards  Queen  of  Sardinia  (No.  266),  who  received  a  good  share 
of  Court  patronage,  showed  considerable  ability  when  he  had 
suflicient  strength  to  resist  the  temptation  to  flatter  his  sitters. 
But  unfortunately  he  too  often  followed  the  example  of  Nattier  in 
this  respect. 

TOCQUfi,   VESTIER,   AND  htTlClt 

A  portrait  painter  of  a  very  different  stamp  was  Nattier's  son- 
in-law,  Louis  Tocqu^  (1696-1772).     Although  he,  too,  was  a  favourite 


PLATE  XLII.^EAN  HONOKE  FllAGONAED 
(1732-1806) 

FEENCH  SCHOOL 

No.  291.— THE  MUSIC  LESSON 

(La  Legon  de  Musique) 

A  fair-haired  young  girl  in  a  low-cut  white  dress  is  seated,  in  profile  towards  the  right,  before  a  spinet. 
A  youth,  standing  at  her  left,  behind  the  instrument,  is  holding  with  his  left  hand  the  score,  whilst  his  right 
is  clasping  the  back  of  the  girl's  chair.     In  the  foreground  a  chair  on  which  are  a  cat  and  a  mandoline. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

3  ft.  9J  in.  X  3  ft.  Hi  in.     (1-10  x  1-20.) 


THE   EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     271 

not  only  at  the  French,  but  also  at  the  Russian  and  Danish  Courts, 
the  examples  of  his  art  at  the  Louvre  suggest  that  he  was  but 
indifferently  successful — from  the  artistic  point  of  view — with  his 
"official"  portraits,  like  the  portrait  d'apparat  of  Marie  Leczinska, 
Queen  of  Louis  X  V.  (No.  867),  or  the  affected  Pmirait  of  the  Dauphin 
Louis  at  the  age  of  ten  (No.  868).  On  the  other  hand,  when  he  was 
not  weighed  down  by  the  importance  of  his  task,  he  attained  to  a 
solidity  of  style,  strength  of  character  painting,  and  beauty  of 
technique  that  place  him  at  the  head  of  the  French  portraitists  of 
his  period.  Tocque  was  apparently  never  in  England,  but  such 
masterpieces  from  his  brush  as  the  Mme.  Danger  enfihroidering  (No. 
868a),  and  the  supposed  portrait  of  Mme.  de  Grajffigny  (No.  869),  show 
distinct  affinity  with  Allan  Ramsay  and  Hogarth,  with  superadded 
'Fvench.  finesse  and  suavity. 

In  the  case  of  Antoine  Vestier  (1740-1824)  the  pronounced 
leaning  towards  the  English  style  of  the  period  is  to  be  accounted 
for  by  that  artist's  lengthy  sojourn  in  England.  The  Portrait  of  a 
Young  Woman  (No.  961),  in  the  La  Gaze  Room,  might  on  superficial 
inspection  pass  for  a  work  of  Francis  Cotes.  Even  in  the  Portrait  of 
the  Painter's  Wife  (No.  959),  which  was  painted  in  1787,  long  after 
Vestier's  return  to  his  native  country,  the  figure  of  a  boy  caressing 
a  dog  has  a  curiously  English  flavour. 

Honesty  of  purpose  and  serious  concern  with  artistic  problems 
mark  the  art  of  Nicolas  Bernard  Lepicie  (1735-1784),  whose  Portrait 
of  Carle  Vernet  (549a)  is  a  picture  of  precious  quality.  He  devoted 
himself  more  particularly  to  the  domestic  genre,  which  he  treated 
without  the  sentimentality  and  theatricality  of  a  Greuze.  Indeed, 
if  there  is  any  contemporary  painter  with  whom  he  shows  affinity, 
it  is  Simeon  Ghardin.  That  he  was  a  landscape  painter  of  no  mean 
ability  may  be  gathered  from  his  Farmyard  (No.  549),  which,  in  spite 
of  the  predominating  brown,  is  remarkable  for  its  luminous 
transparency. 


272  THE  LOUVRE 

M^E    VIGEE   LE   BRUN 

Before  turning  to  the  landscape  painters  Joseph  Vernet  and 
Hubert  Robert,  we  must  close  the  chapter  of  eighteenth-century 
portraiture  with  Elisabeth  Louise  Vigee  Le  Brun  (1755-1842),  since 
her  art,  although  her  life  extended  far  into  the  nineteenth  century, 
belongs  essentially  to  the  degenerate  days  of  the  ancien  regime — an 
art  not  devoid  of  grace,  but  exceeding  in  shallowness  and  insipidity 
the  shallowest  and  most  insipid  productions  of  pre-Davidian  days. 
Of  the  many  masters  from  whom  Vigee,  herself  the  daughter  of  a 
painter,  received  advice,  Greuze  appears  to  be  the  one  with  whom 
she  was  most  in  sympathy.  Married  at  an  early  age  to  Le  Brun, 
a  painter  and  picture-dealer  from  whom  she  was  divorced  after 
many  years  of  wretched  conjugal  life,  her  career,  of  which  she  has 
left  a  fall  account  in  her  autobiography,  was  one  of  adventure  and 
truly  extraordinary  professional  success. 

She  was  the  favourite  painter  of  Marie  Antoinette,  had  to 
leave  Paris  during  the  Terror,  and  made  an  almost  triumphal 
progress  from  Court  to  Court  before  she  definitely  settled  in 
Paris  in  1809.  At  Naples,  Vienna,  Dresden,  St.  Petersburg, 
Berlin,  London,  and  other  centres,  Royalty  and  the  world  of 
fashion  crowded  to  her  studio ;  and  her  art  even  gained  the 
unstinted  approval  of  a  judge  like  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  which  is 
the  more  surprising  as  Vigee  Le  Brun's  colour  was  almost  invariably 
cold  and  unsympathetic.  Her  personal  charms  may  have  been 
partly  responsible  for  her  universal  success,  if  reliance  is  to  be 
placed  on  the  questionable  honesty  of  her  flattering  brush  from 
which  the  Louvre  owns  two  Portraits  of  the  Artist  and  her  Daughter 
(No.  521  and  No.  522,  Plate  XLIV.).  Among  her  other  pictures  in 
the  Louvre  are  the  Peace  bringing  Abundance  (No.  520),  her  recep- 
tion piece  at  the  Academy,  and  a  portrait  of  her  early  friend  and 
master,  Joseph  Vernet  (No.  525). 


PLATE  XLIII.— JEAN-BAPTISTE  GEEUZE 

(1725-1805) 

.No.  372.— THE  BROKEN  PITCHER 

(La  Cruche  Cass^e) 

A  young  girl,  in  white  dress  and  gauze  fichu,  stands  facing  the  spectator,  holding  with  both  hands  some 
loose  llowers  in  the  gathered-up  folds  of  her  dress.  She  carries  a  broken  pitcher  on  her  right  arm.  In  the 
background,  on  the  right,  is  a  fountain  with  a  crouching  lion. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

Oval,  3  ft.  lOi  in.  X  2  ft.  9^  in.     (1-18  X  0-86.) 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     273 

JOSEPH  VERNET 

One  has  to  realise  that  the  art  of  landscape  painting  had 
become  almost  extinct  in  France,  and  that  the  art  of  seascape 
had  never  existed,  if  one  wishes  to  account  for  Diderot's  enthusiasm 
with  regard  to  Claude  Joseph  Vernet  (1714-1789),  which  made  him 
exclaim,  "  What  pictures !  He  rivals  the  Creator  in  celerity,  Nature 
in  truth  ! "  Our  cooler  judgment  cannot  so  easily  pass  over  all  that 
is  cold  and  formal  in  his  art.  But,  taken  in  relation  to  his  con- 
temporaries, he  deserves  respect  for  his  emotional  attitude  towards 
nature,  for  a  sense  of  the  dramatic  that  approaches  Salvator  Rosa's, 
and  for  his  admirable  drawing  of  the  figures  introduced  into  his 
landscapes.  Vernet's  love  of  the  sea  awoke  when  at  the  age  of 
eighteen  he  journeyed  to  Rome,  where  he  became  imbued  with  the 
classic  tradition.  He  only  returned  to  Paris  in  1752,  and  soon  after- 
wards received  jfrom  Louis  xv.  the  commission  to  paint  the  large 
series  of  French  Seaports  (Nos.  940-954)  which  are  now  to  be  seen  in 
the  rooms  in  this  collection  given  up  to  the  Mus^e  de  Marine.  In 
his  other  marines  and  landscapes  (Nos.  912-939),  not  all  of  which 
are  actually  exhibited,  he  allowed  his  imagination  freer  play  than 
in  the  Seaports,  which  were  naturally  of  more  topographic  character. 

Both  his  son  Carle  Vernet  (1758-1836),  a  historical  painter  who 
excelled  in  the  rendering  of  horses  in  movement,  and  his  grandson 
Horace  Vernet  (1789-1863),  a  popular  battle  painter,  are  represented 
at  the  Louvre,  the  former  by  the  Stag  Hunt  in  the  Forest  of 
Meudon  (No.  955),  and  the  latter  by  the  Barriere  de  Clichy  {Defence 
of  Paris  in  1814)  (No.  956),  and  the  uninspired  Judith  and 
Holofernes  (No.  957). 

HUBERT  ROBERT 

Hubert  Robert  (1733-1808),  of  whose  classic  landscapes  the 
collection  contains  nineteen  examples  (Nos.   797-815),  was  not,  as 

35 


274  THE  LOUVRE 

might  be  imagined  from  the  general  character  of  his  paintings, 
influenced  by  the  art  of  Claude  Lorrain,  but  derived  his  love  of 
antique  buildings  and  landscapes  peopled  with  classic  figures  from 
the  general  atmosphere  of  archaeological  enthusiasm  engendered  by 
the  excavations  on  the  site  of  Herculaneum,  which  prevailed  in 
Rome  when  the  young  artist  arrived  at  that  Mecca  of  his  profession 
in  1754.  Robert  lived  and  worked  in  Italy  for  twelve  years,  and 
became  thoroughly  imbued  with  this  antiquarian  spirit.  Unlike 
Claude,  he  rarely,  if  ever,  drew  upon  his  imagination  for  the  details 
of  his  classic  landscapes,  which  are  faithful  transcripts  of  existing 
ruined  or  half-ruined  buildings,  though  not  infrequently  they  are 
arranged  for  greater  pictorial  efiect.  Of  this  half-realistic,  half- 
classic  nature — the  introduction  of  people  in  classic  garb  among 
the  ruins  of  buildings,  which  in  classic  times  wore  a  very  different 
aspect,  is  a  pardonable  anachronism — are  the  Interior  of  the  Temple 
of  Diana  at  Nimes  (No.  799),  and  several  similar  pieces  at  the  Louvre. 
In  his  smaller  pictures,  of  which  the  best  are  the  Fountain  under  a 
Portico  (No.  812)  and  the  Winding  Staircase,  with  three  Figures  (No. 
813),  in  the  La  Caze  Room,  he  rivals  the  rich  quality  of  pigment 
and  mellow  tone  of  Guardi  at  his  best.  Robert  was  Fragonard's 
constant  companion  in  Rome,  and  exercised  considerable  influence 
upon  his  friend,  as  may  be  seen  from  Fragonard's  landscape 
drawings. 

There  is  scarcely  a  trace  of  Italian  classicism  in  the  superb 
View  in  the  Neighbourhood  of  Paris  (No.  650),  by  Louis  Gabriel 
Moreau  (1740-1806),  which  in  its  silvery-grey  tonality,  in  its  sense 
of  atmosphere,  and  in  the  treatment  of  the  receding  distances, 
rather  recalls  the  manner  of  the  Dutchman  Philips  de  Koninck. 
That  Moreau,  who  also  worked  in  England,  was  not  always 
free  from  conventionality,  is  proved  by  the  rather  formal  com- 
position of  the  Vi&u)  of  the  Hills  of  Meudon  from  Saini-Cloud 
(No.  651). 


PLATE  XLIV.— ELISABETH  LOUISE  VIG^E  LE  BKUN 

(1755-1842) 

No.  522. -PORTRAIT  OF  THE  ARTIST  AND  HER  DAUGHTER 

(Portrait  de  Mine.  Le  Brun  et  de  sa  Fillc) 

The  artist,  in  a  white  bodice  witli  purple  sleeves  and  a  yellow  satin  skirt,  is  seated  on  a  green  sofa.  Her 
head  is  inclined  towards  her  right  shoulder.  Slie  presses  towards  her,  witli  both  arms,  her  little  girl,  who  is 
resting  on  her  lap,  with  her  head  turned  towards  the  spectator. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

3  ft.  5^  in.  X  2  it.  9J  in.     (1-05  x  0-85.) 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     275 

LOUIS   DAVID 

The  boudoir  art  of  the  anden  regime  came  to  a  natural  end 
through  the  great  social  upheaval  of  the  Revolution,  of  which  Jacques 
Louis  David  (1748-1825)  is  the  very  personification  in  the  realm  of 
painting.  As  a  pupil  of  Boucher,  David  in  his  early  years  was 
essentially  a  child  of  the  eighteenth  century.  That  he  became  the 
founder  and  head  of  a  new  classicist  school,  as  tyrannical  in  his 
sway  as  had  been  Le  Brun  during  the  reign  of  Louis  xrv.,  was 
due  to  the  teaching  of  Joseph  Marie  Vien,  whom  he  accompanied 
to  Rome  in  1775,  the  year  in  which  Vien  was  appointed  Director 
of  the  ificole  de  Rome.  Vien  was  an  eclectic  and  a  purist  of  greater 
ability  than  would  appear  from  his  two  dull  pictures  at  the  Louvre, 
St.  Germain  and  St.  Vincent  (No.  964)  and  The  Sleeping  Hermit 
(No.  965). 

David's  participation  in  the  events  of  the  year  1789  and  his 
ardent  republicanism  did  not,  as  has  often  been  stated,  attract 
him  to  subjects  from  Republican  Roman  history.  Indeed,  he 
had  already  painted  The  Oath  of  the  Horatii  (No.  189)  and 
The  Lictors  taking  to  Br'uius  the  Corpse  of  his  Sons  (No  191), 
for  Louis  XVI.,  and  was  only  following  the  current  of  taste  in 
devoting  himself  to  the  study  of  the  antique  and  to  antiquarian 
research.  These  two  pictures,  in  spite  of  their  cold  classicism 
and  theatricality,  met  with  sensational  success  on  their  first 
appearance  at  the  Salon.  It  is  not  in  such  works  as  these,  nor 
in  the  Rape  of  the  Sabine  Women  (No.  188),  compared  with  which 
even  Poussin's  version  of  the  same  theme  appears  like  a  glimpse  of 
actual  life,  that  David's  talent  found  its  happiest  expression,  but  in 
the  unafifected  and  irresistibly  charming  Portrait  of  Mme.  Recamier 
(No.  199,  Plate  XLV.)  reclining  on  an  Empire  sofa.  Whatever  this 
picture  may  owe  to  the  sitter's  grace  and  beauty  and  to  the  fact 
that  it  was  never  finished,  and  thus   retained   the   freshness   of  a 


276  THE  LOUVRE 

sketch,  it  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  attractive  masterpieces  of  the 
French  school.  Here,  as  in  the  group  of  Three  Ladies  of  Ghent  (No. 
200a),  in  which  the  luminous  quality  of  the  fresh  tones  is  enhanced 
by  the  general  greyness  of  the  scheme,  we  have  the  work  of  a  real 
painter,  whilst  David's  bombastic  historical  compositions  are  scarcely 
more  than  tinted  cartoons. 


THE   "CORONATION"  PICTURE 

When  Napoleon  rose  to  power,  David  became  his  favourite 
painter.  The  erstwhile  Jacobin  was  chosen  to  paint  the  official 
Coronation  picture  (No.  202a),  an  enormous  canvas,  which,  like 
most  ceremonial  pictures  of  this  kind,  has  more  historical  than 
artistic  significance.  The  lifelike  portraiture  of  the  numerous 
personages  surrounding  the  central  group  of  Napoleon  placing  the 
crown  on  Josephine's  head,  is  the  chief  point  of  interest.  On  the 
restoration  of  the  Bourbons  in  1815,  David  was  sent  into  exile. 
He  died  at  Brussels  in  1825  ;  but  his  influence  is  reflected  in  official 
French  art  to  this  day.  It  was  he  who  imposed  upon  the  modern 
academic  school  a  rigid  canon  of  formal  classic  beauty  which  is 
fatal  to  evolution  and  progress,  because  it  does  not  permit 
personal  emotional  expression. 

Less  severely  classic  in  form,  and  showing  at  least  an  attempt 
at  approaching  a  little  nearer  to  truth  than  David,  is  the  painting 
of  the  figures  of  The  Three  Qraces  (No.  769),  by  David's  rival, 
J.  B.  Regnault  (1754-1829),  in  the  La  Caze  collection.  The 
worst  type  of  academic  art  is  represented  in  the  bituminous 
reconstructions  of  classic  antiquity  by  his  pupil,  P.  N.  Guerin 
(1774-1833),  whose  Return  of  Marcus  Secdus  (No.  393)  enjoyed, 
perhaps  owing  to  its  supposed  political  allusion  to  the  return  of 
the  emigrants,  a  success  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  artistic 
grounds. 


PLATE  XLV.— JACQUES  LOUIS  DAVID 
(1748-1826) 

No.  199.— PORTRAIT  OF  MME.  RfiCAMIER 

(Portrait  de  Mme.  Recamier) 

The  sitter  wears  a  white  Empire  dress,  the  train  of  which  hangs  down  to  the  ground  from  the 
Empire  sofa  on  which  she  is  half  reclining,  with  her  left  elbow  resting  on  a  pair  of  round  horse-hair  bolsters. 
Her  face  is  turned  towards  her  right  shoulder.  A  wide  black  riband  is  tied  round  her  fair  curled  hair.  A 
low  footstool  in  front  of  the  sofa  on  the  right,  and  a  standing  candelabrum  of  classic  design  on  the  left. 

The  candelabrum  is  said  to  have  been  painted  by  Ingres. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas  (unfinished). 
5  ft.  7  in.  X  7  ft.  lOi  in.     (1-70  X  2-40.) 


THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     277 

BARON   GfiRARD 

Among  the  numerous  pupils  and  followers  of  David  who 
rose  to  fame,  honours,  and  wide  popularity  before  Ingres 
became  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  official  school,  the  most 
distinguished  were  Gerard,  Girodet,  and  Gros.  Baron  F.  P.  S. 
Gerard  (1770-1837),  whilst  following  on  the  whole  the  prin- 
ciples laid  down  by  his  master,  knew  how  to  invest  his  work 
with  more  individual  character,  which  stood  him  in  particular 
good  stead  in  his  portraiture.  That  this  was  recognised  by 
his  contemporaries  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  he  became  the 
portrait  painter  jpar  excellence  of  the  First  Empire  and  the 
Bourbon  restoration,  although  his  inclination  drew  him  towards 
allegory  and  mythology.  There  is  undeniable  distinction  and 
fine  characterisation  in  such  portraits  as  The  Painter  Isabey 
and  his  Daughter  (No.  332).  The  nature  of  the  subject  de- 
barred him  from  showing  the  strongest  side  of  his  talent  in 
the  chillingly  unemotional,  but  undeniably  graceful,  Psyche 
receiving  Cupid's  First  Kiss  (No.  328),  and  in  the  Daphnis  and 
Chloe  (No.  329),  which  was  bought  in  1825  for  £1000.  They 
have  their  counterpart  in  the  cold  and  antique  French  sculpture 
of  the  period. 

A.  L.  Girodet  de  Roucy-Trioson  (1767-1824)  was  of  all 
David's  artistic  progeny  the  one  painter  who  devoted  himself 
to  the  purely  pictorial  problem  of  concentrated  light  and  shade, 
without,  however,  being  able  to  free  himself  from  the  domina- 
tion of  linear  design.  The  compromise  of  the  two  principles 
led  to  such  unfortunate  results  as  The  Sleep  of  Endymion  (No. 
361)  and  The  Burial  of  Atala  (No.  362).  In  The  Deluge 
(No.  360),  which  was  painted  later,  he  shows  pronounced  leanings 
towards  a  crude  naturalism  which  exceeds  in  horror  the  most 
cruel  inventions  of  Ribera's  genius. 


278  THE  LOUVRE 

BARON  GROS 

Antoine  Jean  Gros  (1771-1835),  though  a  classicist  by  training, 
was  forced  by  circumstances,  and  by  the  patronage  of  Napoleon 
who  ennobled  him,  to  devote  his  brush  to  an  important  phase  of 
contemporary  life — the  glorification  of  his  hero's  warlike  achieve- 
ments. He  was  by  no  means  a  realist ;  and  although  he  followed 
Napoleon  on  many  of  his  campaigns  and  presumably  brought  back 
with  him  rich  material  in  sketches  and  vivid  recollections,  his  force- 
ful compositions  accentuate  the  heroic  aspect  and  the  imaginative 
appeal  of  warfare,  and  are  not  spontaneous  glimpses  of  actuality. 
The  whole  glamour  of  the  Napoleonic  legend  is  expressed  in  the 
group  of  wounded  soldiers  who,  oblivious  of  their  suffering,  cheer 
their  great  captain  in  Napoleon  at  the  Battle  of  Eylau  (No.  389). 
The  sense  of  the  heroic  is  as  pronounced  in  the  large  painting. 
Napoleon  visiting  the  Plague-stricken  at  Jaffa  (No.  388),  in  the 
Bonaparte  at  Arcole  (No.  391),  and  even  in  the  impressive  Portrait 
of  Lieutenant  -  General  Fournier  -  Sarloveze  (No.  392a),  silhouetted 
against  a  smoke-filled  battlefield.  A  careful  inspection  of  this 
large  canvas  shows  pentimenti  in  the  painting  of  the  legs,  of 
which  the  General  seems  now  to  have  two  pair!  Gros's 
weakness,  like  that  of  all  David's  pupils,  was  his  neglect  of 
colour.  His  popularity  waned  rapidly  after  the  fall  of  Napoleon. 
He  became  a  victim  to  melancholia,  and  drowned  himself  in  the 
Seine  in  1835. 

PIERRE   PRUD'HON 

Though  not  entirely  detached  from  the  ruling  school  of  the 
period,  Pierre  Prud'hon  (1758-1823)  occupies  a  unique  position 
among  his  contemporaries.  Having  absolved  his  preliminary 
studies  at  Dijon,  he  became  the  pupil  of  the  old  masters — of 
Correggio  and  Leonardo — first  in  Paris  and  then  in  Rome,  where 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     279 

he  worked  for  seven  years  before  definitely  settling  at  Paris  in  1789. 
To  his  sympathy  with  the  Italian  masters  he  owed  that  mellowness 
of  colour  and  understanding  of  chiaroscuro  which  escaped  the  grasp 
of  the  Davidists.  He  was  a  real  painter  as  distinguished  from  the 
classicist  draughtsmen  of  the  official  school.  Even  if  it  is  impossible 
to  share  to-day  the  enthusiasm  at  one  time  evoked  by  the  somewhat 
grotesque  allegory,  Justice  and  Divine  Vengeance  pursuing  Crime  (No. 
747),  this  picture,  which  was  intended  for  the  Palais  de  Justice, 
rises  immeasurably  above  the  average  of  the  "imaginative" 
paintings  produced  by  Prud'hon's  contemporaries. 

Vastly  superior  as  regards  pictorial  quality  and  the  whole 
conception,  is  the  Abduction  of  Psyche  hy  Zephyrus  (No.  1^^).  In 
the  Crucifixion  (No.  744),  his  last  picture,  Prud'hon  rises  to  telling 
dramatic  effectiveness  of  colour,  and  heralds  the  advent  of 
Delacroix.  But  the  most  masterly  of  his  seventeen  paintings  at 
the  Louvre  is  the  magnificent  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man  (No.  753), 
which  the  Louvre  was  fortunate  enough  to  secure  for  £35  in  1895. 
It  is  a  strangely  living  evocation  of  a  personality,  searching, 
intimate,  and  mysterious — a  portrait  not  so  much  of  the  superficial 
features,  but  of  the  inner  life  of  the  sitter.  The  large  Portrait  of  the 
Empress  Josephine  (No.  751)  suffers  from  comparison  with  this  master- 
piece. The  pose  is  affected,  the  background  dingy,  and  the  red  of 
the  shawl  introduces  a  harsh  and  disconnected  note  of  colour. 


GERICAULT 

The  revolutionary  movement  of  the  Romanticists,  which  was 
to  find  a  strong  leader  in  Eugene  Delacroix,  may  be  said  to  have 
been  initiated  by  Gericault's  epoch-making  picture  The  Raft 
of  the  Medusa  (No.  338,  Plate  XLVI.).  Theodore  G^ricault  (1791- 
1824),  a  pupil  of  Carle  Vernet  and  Guerin,  was  an  unusually 
gifted    draughtsman,   who  from   the   outset   strove  to  go   beyond 


280  THE  LOUVRE 

the  dead  perfection  of  the  David  school,  and  to  infuse  into 
his  work  the  spark  of  life.  The  Raft  of  the  Medusa,  which 
caused  an  enomous  stir  at  the  Salon  of  1819,  was  inspired  by 
a  tragic  incident  from  actual  life ;  and  G^ricault  was  the  first 
who  dared  to  represent  in  all  its  horrible  reality  this  scene  of 
human  sufiering — the  survivors  of  a  shipwreck  driven  by  hunger 
to  madness  and  mutual  destruction.  He  set  aside  all  arbitrarily 
ignored  canons  of  formal  beauty  and  the  "grand  style,"  and 
applied  himself  to  depicting  fierce  passions  and  emotions. 

G^ricault  was  a  passionate  lover  of  horses ;  but  his  knowledge 
of  equine  anatomy  did  not  prevent  him,  in  his  portrait  of  an 
Ojfficer  of  the  Guard  (No.  339),  from  exaggerating  the  action  of  the 
charging  horse  to  a  point  dangerously  near  the  border-line 
between  the  sublime  and  the  ridiculous.  Most  of  his  other 
pictures  at  the  Louvre  are  studies  of  soldiers,  and  horses  on  the 
race-course  or  in  the  stable.  He  died  in  1824  from  the  effects  of 
a  fall  from  a  horse. 

DELACROIX 

The  topical  interest  of  the  Raft  of  the  Medusa  had  caused  the 
public  to  receive  this  picture  with  favour,  in  spite  of  its  daring 
departure  fi'om  the  generally  accepted  canons  of  the  "grand 
style."  The  case  was  different  when  Delacroix  showed  at  the 
Salon  of  1822  the  Barde  and  Virgil  (No.  207,  Plate  XLVIL), 
which  was  inspired  by  G^ricault's  great  picture,  but  applied 
that  artist's  principles  to  a  subject  taken  from  literature, — from 
Dante's  "  Inferno," — and  was  therefore  considered  as  a  direct 
challenge  to  the  academic  host.  To-day  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  indignation  aroused  by  the  young  artist,  who  became 
forthwith  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  so-called  Romanticist 
school,  although  he  refrained  from  taking  part  in  any  propaganda. 
In  this,   his  first  important  exhibited  picture,  he  proved  himself 


PLATE  XLVL— JEAN  LOUIS  ANDRfi  THilODOEE  GERICAULT 

(1791-1824) 

No.  338.— THE  RAFT  OF  THE  MEDUSA 

(Le  Radeau  de  la  Mdduse) 

The  raft  of  the  wrecked  Medusa,  with  the  survivors  of  the  crew,  is  floating  on  the  stormy  sea.  In  the 
foreground  on  the  left,  surrounded  by  dead  sailors,  a  father  is  holding  with  his  left  hand  the  nude  body  of 
his  dying  son.  On  the  right,  a  corpse  is  partly  resting  on  the  raft,  partly  floating  on  the  water.  Farther 
back  the  officer,  Corr&ird,  is  seen  pointing  out  to  the  surgeon,  Savigny,  the  brig  Argus,  which  appears  on  the 
far  horizon  under  the  clouded  sky.  At  the  far  end  of  the  raft  a  mulatto  and  a  sailor  have  hoisted  themselves 
on  to  some  barrels  to  wave  some  rags,  so  as  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  distant  ship. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

16  ft.  li  in    X  23  ft.  6  in.    (4-91  x  7-16.) 


THE   NINETEENTH-CENTURY   FRENCH  SCHOOL      281 

a  true  painter  in  the  sense  in  which  Rubens  was  a  painter — that 

is  to  say,  he  no  longer  gave  primary  importance  to  drawing,  with 

colour  added  afterwards  in  the  manner  of  a  tinted   cartoon.     In 

the  Darde  and  Virgil  colour  and  the   actual  sweep   of  the   brush 

assumed  at    once    a    vital    and  constructive    function,   no  longer 

separable  from  drawing  and  design. 

Eugene    Delacroix    (1798-1863),    who  belonged    to    a    family 

that  had  given    to    France    many    distinguished    statesmen    and 

soldiers,   was    a    pupil    of  Guerin,    whose   conventional    teaching, 

however,  was  little  to  the  taste  of  a  young  man  whose  passionate 

nature    had  been    fired     by    his    extensive    reading    of   romantic 

literature,  and  who  preferred  to   form  his   style   on   the   works   of 

Rubens  and  other  old    masters    at    the    Louvre,   and  to  benefit 

from  his  intercourse  with    Gericault  and  Bonington.      The   Dante 

and  Virgil,  which  is  now   in  a  deplorable  state   of  neglect,    was 

bought  by  the   State    at    the   not    very  generous  price   of   £50. 

Delacroix's   next    Salon  picture.    The  Massacre  of  Scio  (No.    208), 

caused  an  even  greater  storm  of  abuse  of  the  young  artist  who  had 

dared  to  depict  the  horrors  of  this  scene  from  the  Greek  War  of 

Independence,  as  it  was  thought,  in   all  their  crudeness,    without 

the  heroical  and  theatrical  poses  that  were   deemed  necessary  for 

pictorial    "histories."      The    magnificent    atmospheric    background 

owes  its  origin  to  Delacroix's  first  acquaintance  with  the  Hay  Wain 

and  two  other  pictures  sent  by   Constable  to  the  Salon  of  1824, 

which   caused   the  impetuous    young  artist  to   repaint  in  a  few 

days   the  sky  and  landscape.     The   picture  was   again   bought   by 

the  State,  the  price  this  time  being  raised  to  £240.     A  superb 

study  for  the   dead  mother  and  child  in  the  right-hand   corner 

has  been  bequeathed  by  M.  Cheramy,  the   present  owner,  to   the 

National    Gallery,   where    it  is    to    be   hung  next  to   "the    best 

Constable." 

It  is  impossible  here   to  give   a  full   account  of  the  twenty- 
36 


282  THE  LOUVRE 

one  paintings  by  Delacroix  at  the  Louvre,  to  which  should  be 
added  his  decorative  masterpiece,  the  centre  of  the  ceiling  in 
the  Galerie  d'Apollon.  We  must  content  ourselves  with  a  brief 
reference  to  his  more  important  canvases,  first  of  which  in 
order  of  date  is  The  28th  of  July  1880  :  Liberty  leading  the  People 
(No.  209),  better  known  as  The  Barricade.  The  introduction  of 
a  bourgeois  with  a  top-hat  in  this  stirring  scene  of  contemporary 
heroism  was  another  act  of  defiance.  But  the  dramatic  power 
of  the  conception,  which  suffers  but  is  by  no  means  destroyed  by 
the  wretched  allegorical  figure  of  Liberty,  and  the  artist's  appeal 
to  political  passion,  caused  the  picture  to  be  an  enormous 
success, 

DELACROIX'S   ORIENTAL   PICTURES 

Delacroix's  journey  to  Morocco,  with  Count  Morney's  mission 
in  1832,  was  of  the  greatest  benefit  to  the  artist's  progress 
as  a  colourist.  Although  he  had  no  time  during  his  travels  to 
paint  any  pictures,  he  brought  back  with  him  a  wealth  of  rapid 
sketches  which,  with  his  vivid  recollections  of  Eastern  life  and 
colour,  led  to  the  production  of  such  masterpieces  as  the  Algerian 
Women  in  their  Apartment  (No.  210),  the  Jewish  Wedding  in 
Moi-occo  (No.  211),  and  The  Entry  of  the  Crusaders  into  Constantinople 
(No.  213).  In  the  sumptuous  scheme  of  Crusad&rs  the  last 
traces  of  the  influence  of  Gros's  colourless  palette  have  vanished. 
The  picture  was  commissioned  by  Louis  Philippe  for  the  Chateau 
at  Versailles,  the  remuneration  being  fixed  at  £400.  A  copy  of 
the  picture  is  in  one  of  the  Salles  des  Croisades  at  Versailles, 
and  a  small  sketch  is  at  Chantilly.  The  Algerian  Women  is  par- 
ticularly remarkable  for  the  luminous  sparkle  of  rich  pigment 
through  the  ambient  of  silvery  atmosphere. 

Among  Delacroix's  masterpieces  must  be  counted  the  Portrait 
of  the  Artist  (No.  214),  which  he  left  on  his  death  to  his  servant, 


PLATE  XLVII.— FERDINAND  VICTOR  EUGME  DELACROIX 

(1798-1863) 

No.  207.— DANTE  AND  VIRGIL 

(Dante  et  Virgile  aux  Enfers) 

In  a  boat,  steered  by  Charon  across  the  river  Styx,  Virgil,  laurel-crowned  and  dressed  in  a  red  cloak, 
holds  with  his  right  hand  the  left  hand  of  Dante,  wlio,  in  a  blue  cloak  with  a  red  hood,  raises  his  riglit  arm  in 
a  gesture  of  horror  at  the  sight  of  the  Damned,  who,  half-buried  in  the  turbulent  waters,  cling  despairingly 
to  the  sides  of  the  boat.     In  the  background  are  seen  the  towers  of  the  burning  city  of  Dite. 

Signed  ; — "  KusiiNE  delacroix." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

5  ft.  11  in.  X  7  ft.  lOi  in.     (180  x  2-40.) 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     283 

Jenny  le  Guillon,  stipulating  that  she  should  give  it  to  the 
Louvre  on  the  day  of  the  restoration  of  the  Orleans  family — an 
event  which  never  happened,  though  the  picture  reached  its 
destination  in  1872  through  the  generosity  of  Mme.  Durien. 
The  Shipwreck  of  Dm  Juan  (No.  212),  painted  in  1840,  is  based 
on  Lord  Byron's  epic  poem,  of  which  it  is,  however,  by  no  means 
a  literal  illustration.  It  is  one  of  the  most  stirring  renderings  of 
human  passion  and  despair  in  the  whole  history  of  art,  the  livid 
light  and  general  sombre  scheme  of  colour  contributing  towards 
the  tragic  effect,  as  though  Nature  herself  were  entering  into  the 
mood  of  the  horrible  scene. 

Although,  on  the  whole,  an  unsatisfactory  picture, 
Delacroix's  Roger  delivering  Angelica  (No.  2845)  may  serve  to 
illustrate  the  true  significance  of  his  art  in  its  relation  to  the 
official  school,  as  there  is  in  the  same  collection  another  rendering 
of  the  identical  subject  (No.  419)  by  his  great  antagonist  Ingres, 
the  greatest  draughtsman  of  his  century,  and  the  acknowledged 
leader  of  the  Classicist  school.  Comparison  between  the  two 
works  will  show  that  Delacroix's  version,  with  all  its  obvious 
imperfections,  far  surpasses  Ingres's  in  emotional  intensity  and 
.fierce  vitality.  The  academic  perfection  and  exquisite  finish  of 
Ingres's  picture  only  accentuate  the  dulness  and  lifelessness  of 
his  conception. 

INGRES 

Jean  Auguste  Dominique  Ingres  (1780-1867)  was  a  pupil 
of  David.  Having  gained  the  Prix  de  Rome  in  1801,  he  did 
not  leave  for  Italy  until  1806,  but  spent  the  next  eighteen  years 
in  Rome  and  Florence,  returning  to  Paris  in  1824.  Although 
Ingres  was  brought  up  in  the  cold  tradition  of  the  David  school, 
he  had  a  much  clearer  perception  of  the  true  spirit  of  Greek 
art   than    his    master.      When    he    became    acquainted  with   the 


284  THE  LOUVRE 

work  of  Raphael  in  Rome,  he  found  it  the  very  acme  of 
perfection,  and  henceforth  frankly  strove  to  emulate  that  master, 
seeking  to  arrive  at  an  eclectic  ideal  of  the  human  form  which 
in  its  dogmatic  rule  of  the  proportions  that  constitute  absolute 
beauty,  allowed  none  of  the  accents  and  variations  which  make 
for  life  and  character.  Himself  greater  than  his  theories,  Ingres 
achieved  that  perfection  of  grace  and  beauty  in  his  deservedly 
famous  The  Spring  (No.  422,  Plate  XL VIII.),  one  of  the  few 
"gems"  in  the  Salle  Duch^tel,  and  in  the  very  Raphaelesque 
Odalisque  (No.  422b),  which  was  purchased  in  1899  from  the 
Princesse  de  Sagan  for  £2400.  On  the  other  hand,  the  imposi- 
tion of  an  inflexible,  rigid  ideal  of  form  did  incalculable  harm 
to  his  numerous  and  less  gifted  followers,  in  whom  every 
spark  of  individuality  was  extinguished  by  the  tyranny  of  the 
dogma. 

Yet  Ingres,  when  he  applied  himself  to  portraiture,  was 
as  uncompromising  a  realist  as  Holbein,  of  whose  sensitive, 
subtle  drawing  and  plastic  modelling,  without  the  introduction 
of  entirely  unnecessary  shiny  high  lights,  we  are  forcibly 
reminded  by  the  Portrait  of  the  Painter's  Friend,  M.  Bochet 
(No.  428a).  Something  of  the  same  perfection  of  modelling, 
suggested  rather  by  the  sensitive  contour  than  clearly  stated  by 
pronounced  lights  and  shadows,  is  to  be  noticed  in  the  nude 
figure  of  The  Odalisque,  and  in  the  creamy  white  drapings  of 
the  oval  Portrait  of  Mme.  Riviere  (No.  427).  Perhaps  his  best 
portrait  at  the  Louvre  is  the  one  of  M.  Bertin,  Founder  of  the 
Journal  des  Debots  (No.  428b),  a  masterpiece  of  character  painting, 
in  which  the  marvellously  drawn  fleshy  hands,  with  their 
tapering  fingers,  are  as  expressive  as  the  fine  head.  This  portrait 
was  acquired  in  1897  for  the  sum  of  £3200. 

The  less  admirable  side  of  Ingres's  talent  is  illustrated  by 
the   circular  composition  of  the    Virgin  of  the  Host   (No.    416),   a 


PLATE  XLVIII.— JEAN  AUGUSTE  DOMINIQUE  INGEES 

(1780-1867) 

No.  422.— THE  SPRING 

(La  Source) 

A  nude  figure  of  a  fair-haired  young  maiden  stands  facing  the  spectator,  the  background  being  formed 
by  a  perpendicular  rock  partly  overgrown  with  clinging  plants.  She  raises  her  right  arm  over  her  head  to 
hold  the  foot  of  a  tilted  vase,  the  mouth  of  which  is  supported  by  her  left  hand,  and  from  which  issues  a 
streamlet  of  water  that  falls  into  a  pool  at  the  base  of  the  rock,  in  which  are  reflected  the  feet  of  the  maiden. 

Signed  on  a  stone  on  the  left : — "  Ingres,  1856." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

5  ft.  5  in.  X  2  ft.  7i  in.     (1-65  x  0-80.) 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL      285 

crude  scheme  of  " Sassoferrato  blue"  and  red,  on  entirely  con- 
ventional lines  ;  and  by  the  Apotheosis  of  Homer  (No.  417),  a  tame 
Raphaelesque  design  in  which  Homer  is  seen  enthroned  in  the 
centre,  with  allegorical  figures  of  the  Riad  and  Odyssey  seated 
on  the  steps  of  the  throne,  and  a  winged  goddess  placing  a 
laurel  wreath  on  his  head.  To  the  left .  of  the  central  group  are 
the  figures  of  Hesiod,  ^schylus,  Apelles,  Raphael,  Virgil,  Dante, 
Tasso,  Corneille,  and  Poussin ;  to  the  right,  Pindar,  Plato,  Socrates, 
Alexander,  Camoens,  Racine,  Moli^re,  and  Fenelon.  There  is  a 
touch  of  the  grotesque  in  the  combination  of  rather  mechanical 
dry  portraiture  with  trite  allegory  that  constitutes  the  design 
of  the  terribly  cracked  Portrait  of  the  Composer  Cheruhini  (No.  418). 
His  failings  as  a  colourist  are  most  aggressively  obvious  in  the 
Christ  handing  the  Keys  to  St.  Peter  (No.  415)  Ingres  died  in 
Paris  on  the  14th  January  1867. 


DELAROCHE  AND  SOHEFFER 

Among  the  painters  who  were  influenced  by  Delacroix,  and 
whose  name  was  associated  with  the  Romanticist  movement, 
none  rose  to  greater  fame  than  Paul  Delaroche  (1797-1856),  a 
pupil  of  Gros,  and  the  Dutchman  Ary  Scheffer  (1795-1858),  who, 
like  Delacroix,  studied  under  Guerin.  But  neither  of  these 
artists  managed  wholly  to  shake  off  the  trammels  of  the 
academic  tradition,  and  both  became  popular  for  the  very 
reasons  for  which  a  more  critical  generation  has  denied  them 
the  right  to  figure  among  the  world's  great  artists :  Delaroche 
for  the  theatricality  of  his  historical  anecdotes,  of  which  The  Death 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  (No.  216)  and  The  Princes  in  the  Tower  (No.  217) 
are  typical  examples ;  and  Scheffer  for  the  sickly  sentimentality 
displayed  in  such  pictures  as  St.  Augibstine  and  St.  Mcmica 
(No.  841). 


286  THE  LOUVRE 

Contemporary  with  the  fighters  in  the  great  battle  between 
the  Romanticists  and  the  Classicists  were  a  group  of  able 
painters  who  were  not  connected  with  either  of  these  main 
currents  of  artistic  thought,  but  drew  their  inspiration  from 
the  Dutch  genre  painters.  The  Arrival  of  a  Diligence  at  the 
Messageries  (No.  28),  by  Louis  Leopold  Boilly  (1761-1845),  and 
The  Interim  of  a  Kitchen  (No.  261),  by  Martin  Drolling  (1752-1817), 
may  be  quoted  as  characteristic  instances  of  these  "  small  masters  " 
without  possessing  the  luminosity  of  their  Dutch  exemplars. 


DECAMPS 

Something  of  the  precious  quality  of  pigment  and  of  the 
luminosity  of  these  Dutchmen  is  to  be  found  in  the  genre 
pictures  of  Alexandre  Gabriel  Decamps  (1803-1860),  of  which  a 
large  number  form  part  of  the  Thomy  Thi^ry  Bequest — notably 
The  Knife-Grinder  (No.  2831)  and  The  Gipsy  Encampment  (No.  2833). 
Decamps  owes  his  historical  importance  to  his  position  as  the 
head  of  the  Orientalists.  Unlike  his  contemporary  explorer  of 
the  East  for  pictorial  purposes,  Delacroix,  he  found  the  facts  of 
Eastern  life,  scenery,  and  customs  sufficiently  attractive  to  be 
satisfied  with  the  realistic  statement  of  his  visual  impressions, 
instead  of  making  them  the  basis  for  the  invention  of  romantic 
incidents.  Yet  the  Street  in  Smyrna  (No.  2827)  and  similar  works 
are  by  no  means  of  merely  topographic  interest,  for  Decamps 
was  a  great  painter  to  whom  pigment  yielded  beauty  independent 
of  the  subject  represented.  The  Rat  retired  from  the  World 
(No.  2834)  vies  in  quality  with  the  still-life  pictures  of  Chardin. 
Decamps  was  also  the  greatest  animal  painter  of  his  time,  as 
may  be  gathered  from  his  Chevaux  de  halage  (No.  204),  The 
Bull-Dog  and  Scotch  Terrier  (No.  206),  and  the  precious  little 
genre  piece.  The  Kennel-Boy  (No.  2838). 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     287 

THE   ORIENTALISTS 

Brought  up  in  the  tradition  of  the  Classicist  school,  Prosper 
Marilhat  (1811-1847)  only  "formed  himself"  when  the  world  of 
colour  was  discovered  to  him  under  the  glowing  sky  of  the  Holy 
Land  and  Egypt,  where  he  painted  The  Mosque  of  the  Khalif 
Hakein,  at  Cairo  (No.  615).  Another  Orientalist  of  great  distinc- 
tion, who,  after  being  a  favourite  pupil  of  Ingres,  became  attracted 
by  the  fiery  romanticism  of  Delacroix,  was  the  Creole  Theodore 
Chasseriau  (1819-1856).  His  works  at  the  Louvre  illustrate  the 
earlier  better  than  the  later  phase  of  his  art.  Chasseriau  was 
still  entirely  under  the  spell  of  Ingres  when  he  painted,  in  1844, 
the  decoration  of  the  Cour  des  Comptes,  which  building  was 
destroyed  under  the  Commune.  Peace  (No.  121a)  is  a  fragment 
of  this  important  decorative  work,  which  may  be  said  to  con- 
stitute a  link  between  Ingres  and  Puvis  de  Chavannes.  The 
Chaste  Susannah  (No.  121)  and  the  Portrait  of  Father  Lacordaire, 
Dominican  Preacher  (No.  121b),  are  again  clear  evidence  of 
Ingres's  influence  upon  Chasseriau  at  the  beginning  of  his  brief 
career. 

A  man  of  profound  culture  and  rare  critical  acumen,  Eugene 
Fromentin  (1820-1876)  was  perhaps  greater  as  a  critic  than  as 
a  painter.  He,  too,  travelled  repeatedly  in  Algeria  and  Egypt, 
where  he  found  abundant  material  both  for  his  brush  and  pen. 
He  did  not  look  upon  the  East  with  the  curiosity  of  the  traveller, 
nor  did  he  let  the  strange  land  work  upon  his  romantic  imagina- 
tion. His  pictures,  somewhat  timid  in  technique  but  marked 
by  great  refinement,  reveal,  on  the  other  hand,  a  thorough  under- 
standing of  the  sad  monotony  of  the  sun-parched  desert,  and 
the  chivalrous,  noble  bearing  of  its  Arab  inhabitants.  His 
refined  talent  shows  to  best  advantage  in  Hawking  in  Algeria 
(No.  305). 


288  THE  LOUVRE 

REGNAULT 

The  Orient  was  by  no  means  the  uncontested  field  of  the 
Romanticists.  But  the  followers  of  the  official  school  who  devoted 
themselves  to  the  depicting  of  Eastern  life  and  scenery,  approached 
these  subjects  in  the  same  spirit  of  parti  pris  which  robs  all  their 
work  of  real  significance — unless,  like  Henri  Regnault  (1843-1871) 
in  his  famous  and  often  reproduced  Moorish  Execution  (No.  771), 
they  treated  them  as  rank  melodrama.  Regnault  is,  however, 
not  to  be  judged  by  this  overrated  piece  of  sensationalism. 
Killed  in  the  Franco-German  War  in  1871  at  the  early  age  of 
twenty-eight,  this  young  painter  gave  rare  promise  of  brilliant 
achievement  in  an  altogether  unacademic  direction  in  his  superb 
equestrian  portrait  of  General  Prim  (No.  770).  There  is  something 
truly  heroic  in  the  way  the  Spanish  general  sits  his  horse, 
arresting  its  forward  movement  with  a  sudden  jerk  at  the  reins ; 
but  the  ruggedness  and  unkempt  appearance  of  the  rider  dis- 
pleased General  Prim  to  such  an  extent  that  Regnault,  who 
would  not  alter  the  picture,  preferred  to  keep  it  on  his  hands. 


ACADEMIC  PAINTERS 

It  will  suffice  here  merely  to  indicate  the  names  and  chief 
works  at  the  Louvre  of  the  principal  artists  who  carried  on,  about 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  academic  tradition, — 
capable  painters  all,  but  without  clearly  -  marked  individuality. 
Thomas  Couture  (1815-1879),  a  pupil  of  Gros  and  of  Delaroche, 
in  painting  the  huge  composition,  Romans  of  the  Decadence 
(No.  156),  produced  a  picture  which  may  be  taken  as  typical  of 
the  ambitions  and  failings  of  the  whole  school — of  their  literary 
tendencies,  theatricality,  and  uninspired  dulness.  He  was,  how- 
ever, an   accomplished  master   of  technique,  which   is  more   than 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL      289 

can  be  said  of  Joseph  Dev^ria  (1805-1865),  the  painter  of  The 
Birth  of  Henri  IV.  (No.  250) ;  or  of  Ingres's  pupil,  the  dull 
Hippolyte  Flandrin  (1809-1864),  who '  is  only  represented  by  two 
Portraits  (Nos.  284  and  285).  Nor  is  it  possible  to-day  to  grow 
enthusiastic  over  the  historical  paintings  of  Joseph  Nicolas  Robert- 
Fleury  (1797-1890),  whose  Conference  at  Foissy  (No.  2982),  Galileo 
before  the  Inquisition  (No.  2983),  and  Christopher  Columbus  received 
by  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  on  his  Return  from  America  (No.  2984), 
can  only  be  regarded  as  unnecessarily  large  coloured  illustrations. 


MICHEL  AND  HUET 

In  the  much  -  neglected  branch  of  landscape  painting  the 
classic  tradition  of  Claude  ruled  supreme  until  a  new  concep- 
tion arose  with  the  victory  of  the  romantics  in  the  third  decade 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  Two  names  only  need  be  mentioned 
before  we  pass  on  to  the  new  movement — the  return  to  nature — 
which  was  inaugurated  by  the  group  of  painters  vaguely  known 
as  the  Barbizon  school.  Both  Georges  Michel  (1763-1843)  and 
Paul  Huet  (1804-1868)  may  be  regarded  as  forerunners  of  that 
great  movement ;  and  both  have  only  in  recent  years  received 
the  recognition  which  is  their  due.  Michel  developed  his  style 
in  copying  and  closely  studying  the  Dutch  landscape  masters, 
and  must  in  his  maturity  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the 
art  of  Constable,  who  exercised,  together  with  Bonington,  a  pro- 
digious influence  on  the  whole  course  of  French  landscape  painting. 
If  Michel's  breadth  of  style,  which  may  be  judged  from  Near 
Montmartre  (No.  626),  had  been  accompanied  by  a  greater  range 
of  subject-matter,  he  would  probably  rank  more  highly  in  the 
roll  of  French  artists ;  but  he  contented  himself  with  the  endless 
repetition  of  the  same  motifs  which  he  found  close  to  Montmartre, 
where  he  spent  his  whole  life.     The   care  with  which   he  studied 

37 


290  THE  LOUVRE 

the  works  of  Jacob  van  Ruisdael  earned  for  him  the  nickname  of 
"the  Ruisdael  of  Montmartre/' 

Huet,  again,  learnt  more  from  the  old  masters  and  from  his 
friends,  Bonington  and  Delacroix,  than  from  his  actual  teachers. 
He,  too,  thrust  aside  the  recipes  of  composing  classic  or  "noble" 
landscapes,  and  was  inspired  by  an  altogether  emotional  outlook 
upon  nature,  calm  and  serene,  as  in  The  Still  Mcrrning  (No.  413), 
or  threatening  and  tempestuous,  as  in  The  Inundation  at  St. 
Cloud  (No.  412),  or  in  his  masterpiece.  The  Breakers  at  Granville 
(No.  2952). 

THE   BARBIZON  SCHOOL 

The  term  "  Barbizon  school "  has  been  extended  from  its 
narrower  meaning,  in  which  it  merely  comprises  Rousseau,  Diaz, 
Millet  and  the  disciples  who  joined  them,  to  form  a  little  artistic 
colony  on  the  edge  of  the  Forest  of  Fontainebleau,  to  a  less 
accurate  but  now  generally  accepted  wider  application,  embracing 
"the  men  of  1830,"  who  collectively  and  individually  set  out, 
inspired  indirectly  by  Constable,  upon  the  conquest  of  light  and 
atmosphere  through  intimate  communion  with  nature.  In  a 
pedantic  survey  of  this  Barbizon  school,  Rousseau  would  have  to 
take  honour  of  place  as  the  leader  of  the  group,  whilst  Corot  and 
Daubigny,  neither  of  whom  actually  worked  at  Barbizon,  would 
have  to  be  altogether  excluded.  But  in  the  more  liberal  inter- 
pretation of  the  term,  which  we  have  here  adopted,  Jean  Baptiste 
Camille  Corot  (1796-1875)  must  be  given  first  place  as  the  doyen 
of  the  whole  group,  since  he  alone  was  born  before  the  eighteenth 
century  had  run  its  course. 

COROT 

Corot,  the  son  of  a  coiffeur  and  a  modiste  in  comfortable 
circumstances,  was  destined  in  his  youth   for  the   drapery  trade. 


THE   NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH  SCHOOL     291 

and  was  only  enabled  to  follow  his  bent  for  the  artistic  profes- 
sion when,  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  he  entered  into  possession 
of  a  small  annual  allowance,  sufficient  to  meet  his  modest  require- 
ments and  to  save  him  from  the  desperate  struggle  for  very 
existence  which  was  the  fate  of  some  of  his  later  friends  and 
companions.  His  early  work  from  nature  had  already  laid  the 
foundations  for  his  subsequent  style  when  he  entered  the  studio, 
first  of  the  academic  painter  Michallon,  and  then  of  Bertin.  In 
1825  Corot  went  to  Rome,  where  he  painted,  among  many  pictures 
of  equally  rich  luscious  quality,  the  View  of  the  Forum  Romanum 
(No.  139),  and  the  View  of  the  Coliseum  (No.  140),  which  he  himself 
bequeathed  to  the  State.  Although  these  early  works  have  none 
of  the  elusive  charm  and  lyrical  feeling  of  his  mature  style,  and 
are  of  rather  topographic  character,  they  reveal  in  every  touch 
the  artist  enamoured  of  atmosphere  and  of  the  quality  of 
pigment.  The  touch  is  precise,  but  not  tight.  The  two  pictures 
were  painted  in  1826,  but  already  they  hold  more  than  a  hint 
of  that  unrivalled  mastery  of  tone-values  which  found  supreme 
expression  in  A  Street  in  Bouai  (No,  141r),  painted  in  1871. 

From  the  precision  of  his  early  manner  Corot  gradually  ad- 
vanced to  freedom  and  airy  looseness  of  touch ;  from  statement 
of  fact,  to  the  suggestion  of  the  very  spirit  and  essence  of  nature 
in  terms  of  paint  that,  more  than  any  other  artist's  work,  justify 
the  expression  "colour  music."  His  later  canvases  are  filled  with 
the  soft  shimmer  of  vibrating  atmosphere  and  with  the  tender 
poetry  of  dawn  and  dusk.  Whilst  retaining  a  truly  classic  sense 
of  style,  and  adapting  nature  to  his  purposes  by  arrangement  and 
generalisation,  he  never  fails  to  convince  the  beholder  of  the 
reality  of  the  scene  represented.  Even  if  his  glades  are  peopled 
with  dancing  nymphs  and  satyrs,  as  in  J.  Morning  (No.  138), 
these  mythical  beings  no  longer  suggest  classic  statuary,  but 
they  belong  as  much  to  the  landscape  as  do  the  trees  and  shrubs 


292  THE  LOUVRE 

and  clouds,  as  do  the  peasant  woman  and  the  cow  in  The  Dell 
{No.  2801,  Plate  XLIX.),  or  the  piping  shepherd  in  the  exquisite 
Souvenir  d'ltalie :  Castel  Gandolfo  (No.  141b).  Of  the  twenty-two 
paintings  by  the  master  at  the  Louvre,  no  fewer  than  twelve 
form  part  of  the  Thorny  Thi^ry  Bequest  to  which  the  great 
French  national  collection  owes  so  many  of  its  chief  treasures  of 
nineteenth-century  art. 

T.   ROUSSEAU 

The  real  head  of  the  Barbizon,  school  was  Theodore  Rousseau 
(1812-1867),  who  was  one  of  the  first  exponents  of  the  "romantic" 
as  opposed  to  the  "classic"  landscape.  If  Corot  was  the  lyric, 
Rousseau  was  the  epic  poet  of  Nature.  In  his  early  works  he 
was  considerably  influenced  by  Constable,  but  he  failed  for  a  long 
time  to  gain  the  approval  of  the  public  and  of  the  Salon  juries. 
Fourteen  times  in  succession  his  pictures  were  refused  admission 
to  the  Salon,  and  success  only  came  to  him  late  in  life.  In  1851, 
at  about  the  same  time  as  Millet,  he  settled  at  Barbizon,  on  the 
outskirts  of  the  Forest  of  Fontainebleau,  where  henceforth  he 
found  the  subjects  for  his  pictures.  Rousseau  was  a  most  con- 
scientious artist,  who  "constructed  a  group  of  trees  with  the  care 
that  an  Academician  puts  into  the  construction  of  a  nude  figure." 
His  love  of  accurate  detail  did  not,  however,  make  him  lose  sight 
of  the  general  effect.  His  insistence  on  bold  silhouettes  made  him 
favour  the  sunset  hour  when,  as  in  his  masterpiece.  An  Opening 
in  the  Forest  at  Fontainebleau  (No.  827),  the  trees  would  form 
effective  dark  masses  against  the  glowing  sunset  sky.  More  char- 
acteristic of  his  favourite  manner  of  composition  is  the  imposing 
group  of  oak  trees  in  the  middle  of  a  plain  in  the  picture  known 
as  Les  Chenes  (No.  2900).  In  this,  as  in  Marais  dans  les  Landes 
(No.  830),  which  was  bought  in  1881  for  £5160,  and,  indeed,  in 
all  the  pictures  where  cattle  are   introduced,   it  will  be   noticed 


PLATE  XLIX.— JEAN-BAPTISTE  CAMILLE  COKOT 
■  (1796-1875) 

No.  2801.— THE  DELL 
(Le  Vallon,  avec  dea  paysannes  et  une  vache) 

A  grass-covered  hill  descends  from  the  horizon  line  on  the  left  to  the  right-hand  bottom  corner  of  the 
picture.  A  low  hedge  with  a  clump  of  trees  in  the  centre  divides  the  grassy  plot  from  the  field  rising  beyond 
towards  the  horizon-line,  from  whicli  projects  a  church  in  the  far  distance.  The  sun  is  behind  the  trees, 
which  throw  a  deep  shadow  on  the  dale.  A  cow  occupies  the  centre  of  the  foreground.  To  the  left  a  group 
of  three  peasant  women  and  a  child  ;  to  the  right  a  farm  labourer. 

Signed  on  left : — "  corot." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

1  ft.  1|  in.  X  1  ft.  9i  in.     (0-35  x  0-54.) 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL     293 

that  the  animals  form  part  and  parcel  of  the  landscape,  and  are 
no  longer  individual  ''portraits"  of  animals,  as  they  were  apt  to 
be  in  the  pictures  by  the  earlier  Dutch  cattle-painters.  The  same 
unity  of  vision  is  to  be  noted  in  all  his  sixteen  pictures  at  the 
Louvre. 

C.   TROYON 

This  oneness  of  inanimate  and  animate  nature  is  less  completely 
realised  in  the  art  of  Constant  Troyon  (1810-1865),  who,  having 
been  trained  as  a  porcelain-painter,  was  subsequently  attracted 
by  the  romanticism  of  Dupr^,  but  followed  such  Dutch  masters 
as  Paul  Potter  in  subordinating  the  landscape  to  the  cattle.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  Troyon  is  known  to  the  public  as  a  "  cattle- 
painter"  rather  than  as  a  landscape  painter.  At  the  same  time, 
he  was  a  close  observer  of  the  effects  of  light  on  fields  and  meadows, 
which  he  rendered  with  a  skill  only  rivalled  by  the  solidity,  the 
suggestion  of  weight  and  movement,  the  well-accentuated  forms 
and  sinuosities  of  his  cattle.  The  huge  canvas  Ooten  going  to  Work 
<No.  889)  is  an  unrivalled  achievement  of  its  kind — a  piece  of  realism 
that  is  not  without  poetry  and  grandeur.  Next  to  it  in  importance 
ranks  the  Return  to  the  Farm.  (No.  890).  Among  the  eleven  Troyons 
(Nos.  2906-2916)  of  the  Thomy  Thi^ry  Bequest,  the  Morning  (No.  2909) 
strikes  a  more  cheerful  and  hopeful  note  than  is  this  artist's  wont. 

Another  artist  of  this  group,  who  devoted  himself  almost 
exclusively  to  the  painting  of  sheep,  is  Charles  Jacque  (1813- 
1894),  from  whose  brush  the  Louvre  owns  the  Flock  of  Sheep  in  a 
Landscape  (No.  430a),  a  characteristic  work  of  unusually  large 
dimensions. 

J.   DUPRlfi 

Jules  Dupr^  (1811-1889)  began,  like  Troyon,  as  a  china-painter, 
and,  like  Rousseau,  with  whom  he  was  for  years  on  terms  of  intimate 


294  THE  LOUVRE 

friendship,  benefited  by  the  example  of  Constable,  whose  art  he 
had  presumably  occasion  to  study  during  a  visit  to  England.  It 
was  from  him  that  he  acquired  the  sense  of  movement  in  nature, 
which  is  so  much  more  pronounced  in  his  landscapes  than  in 
Rousseau's,  whom  he  exceeded  in  breadth  of  touch  and  in  power. 
More  particularly  in  his  later  manner  he  loved  to  apply  his  colours 
in  a  thick  impasto  laid  on  to  every  part  of  the  canvas,  including 
the  sky.  Only  on  rare  occasions  did  he  adopt  the  more  fluid, 
suave  manner  shown  in  Morning  (No.  2940)  and  Evening  (No.  2941), 
the  two  decorative  panels  executed  for  Prince  Demidoff,  and 
acquired  by  the  Louvre  in  1880  at  the  San  Donato  sale.  More 
typical  of  his  virile,  forceful  style  are  the  twelve  signed  pictures 
by  Dupr^  in  the  Thomy  Thiery  Bequest  (Nos.  2864-2875),  especially 
the  fine  autumn  landscape  The  Pond  (No.  2867,  Plate  L.),  the 
intensely  sad,  sunless  Flock  in  the  Landes  (No.  2871),  The  Large  Oak 
(No.  2873),  and  The  Sumet  on  a  Marsh  (No.  2874),  with  the  golden 
glow  of  the  sky  reflected  in  the  water. 

Before  turning  to  Diaz,  who  has  been  aptly  called  "  the  most 
romantic  of  the  Romanticists,"  we  must  briefly  mention  Eugene 
Isabey  (1804-1886),  who  connects  the  art  of  the  First  Empire  with 
Romanticism,  and  who  knew  how  to  invest  his  historical  paintings 
with  genuinely  pictorial  interest  at  a  time  when  that  class  of  subject 
was  generally  treated  from  the  literary  and  anecdotal  point  of  view. 
His  exuberant  temperament  led  him  not  infrequently  to  exaggerated 
movement.  The  twelve  pictures  which  bear  his  signature  at  the 
Louvre  (Nos.  2878-2884,  2953-2956,  and  2953a)  are  illustrative  of 
every  phase  of  his  art.  As  a  landscape  painter  he  may  be  considered 
a  forerunner  of  Rousseau. 

DIAZ 

Narcisse  Diaz  de  la  PeQa  (1809-1876)  was  born  at  Bordeaux, 
the  son  of  political  fugitives  from  Spain,  and,  like  so  many  artists 


PLATE  L.— JULES  DUPEfi 

(1811-1889) 

No.  2867.— THE  POND 

(La  Mare) 

Autumnal  landscape  with  a  pond  in  the  middle  distance  on  the  left,  bordered  on  tlie  right,  in  the 
centre  of  the  composition,  by  a  group  of  oak  trees.  In  the  foreground  some  cattle  and  a  cowherd. 
Cloudy  sky. 

Signed  on  left : — "jules  dupr^." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

1  ft.  1  in.  X  1  ft.  6|  in.     (0-32  x  0-46.) 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL      295 

of  this  group,  started  his  artistic  career  as  a  china-painter.  He 
afterwards  gained  considerable  success  with  his  romantic  figure 
pictures  of  mythological  and  Oriental  subjects,  like  the  Nymphs  in 
a  Wood  (No.  2854),  Verms  and  Adonis  (No.  2858),  Venus  disarming 
Cupid  (No.  2859),  and  above  all  the  Fee  aux  Perles  (No.  256).  As 
a  landscape  painter  he  delighted  in  rendering  the  sparkle  of 
sunlight  penetrating  through  the  dense  foHage  of  forest  and 
brushwood.  Diaz  must  be  placed  between  Isabey  and  Millet, 
who  followed  his  example  in  his  early  figure  pieces ;  but  he  was 
also  influenced  by  Rousseau  and  by  Delacroix,  Among  his 
eighteen  pictures  at  the  Louvre  are  several  landscapes  of  superb 
quality,  notably  the  Study  of  a  Birch  Tree  (No.  252),  Sous  Bois 
(No.  253),  and  Dogs  in  the  Fwest  (No.  257a). 


DAUBIGNY 

Of  all  the  Barbizon  painters  and  their  artistic  kinship,  Charles 
rran9ois  Daubigny  (1817-1878)  is  the  one  who  approached  nature 
with  the  most  reverent  spirit.  He  is  in  a  way  the  least  subjective 
of  them  all,  because  his  love  of  nature  even  in  her  simplest 
aspects  prevented  him  from  imposing  his  own  personality  upon 
her ;  and  for  this  very  reason  he  is  more  varied  in  his  range 
of  landscape  subjects  than  any  of  the  other  masters  of  this 
important  group.  The  most  fugitive  effects  of  light  and  atmo- 
sphere were  seized  by  him  with  a  masterly  sureness  which  found 
expression  in  every  touch  of  his  summary  brush.  Every  hour 
of  the  day,  every  season  of  the  year,  every  mood  of  nature  ap- 
pealed to  him  with  equal  intensity,  although  the  choice  of  his 
subjects  is  most  frequently  inspired  by  serene  optimism. 

Daubigny  belonged  to  a  family  of  artists.  He  received  his 
first  instruction  from  his  father,  and  afterwards  studied  under 
Delaroche.     Before    he  began   to  paint  landscapes  in   the  neigh- 


296  THE   LOUVRE 

bourhood  of  Paris,  he  gained  his  livelihood  by  painting  sweet- 
boxes  !  He  found  his  best  subjects  on  the  banks  of  the  Oise, 
but  worked  also  in  other  districts  of  France,  in  Italy,  and  in 
England.  Of  his  sojourn  in  England  we  are  reminded  by  The 
Thames  at  Erith  (No.  2821),  one  of  the  thirteen  Daubignys  bequeathed 
to  the  Louvre  by  Thorny  Thi^ry,  which  also  include  the  sun-flooded 
Weir  Gate  at  Optevoz  (No.  2818,  Plate  LI.),  The  Pond  with  Storks 
(No.  2815),  Les  Peniches  (No.  2820),  Jforning  on  the  River  (No.  2824), 
and  The  Banks  of  the  Oise  (No.  2823).  The  Vintage  in  Burgundy 
(No.  184),  which  was  bought  by  the  State  at  the  ridiculously  low 
price  of  £400,  is  a  picture  of  unusually  large  dimensions  for  an 
artist  who  generally  needed  but  a  small  surface  to  express  his 
ardent  worship  of  nature.  The  delicious  Spring  (No.  185),  with 
its  blossoming  apple  trees  and  young  grass,  must  be  counted  among 
his  finest  achievements.  It  is  a  picture  that  fills  the  heart  of  the 
beholder  with  the  joy  and  contentment  engendered  by  the  blithe 
atmosphere  of  a  bright  spring  day  in  the  country. 


MILLET 

The  Louvre  is  fortunate  in  possessing  no  fewer  than  a  dozen 
pictures  by  Jean  Fran9ois  Millet  (1814-1875),  the  great  painter 
of  the  peasant's  unceasing  struggle  with  the  forces  of  nature  to 
gain  his  livelihood  from  the  soil.  Millet  himself  was  the  son  of 
a  peasant,  and  was  kept  busy  with  farm  work  until  he  had 
attained  the  age  of  twenty,  when  he  began  to  study  art  at 
Cherbourg.  His  studies  were  repeatedly  interrupted  before  he 
definitely  took  up  art  as  his  profession.  Before  he  went  to  Barbizon, 
in  1849,  to  devote  himself  exclusively  to  the  genre  in  which  he 
was  to  achieve  immortal  fame,  he  gained  popular  favour  and 
admission  to  the  Salon  by  following  the  eighteenth  -  century 
tradition  of  mythological  art,  and  painted  a  number  of  nude  studies 


PLATE  LL— CHARLES  FEANCOIS  DAUBIGNY 

(1817-1878) 

No.  2818.— THE  WEIR  GATE  AT  OPTEVOZ 

(La  Valine  d'Optevoz) 

In  the  limpid  clear  water  of  the  river,  in  the  foreground,  are  reflected  the  blue  sky  and  the  opposite  river 
bank,  which,  from  a  grassy  slope  on  the  left  changes  abruptly,  near  the  weir  gate,  into  a  steep,  low,  sandstone 
cliff,  on  the  crest  of  which  some  trees  and  bushes  are  silhouetted  against  the  sky.  On  the  left  some  ducks  are 
swimming  on  the  mirror-like  water. 

Signed  on  left : — "  daubigny,  1859." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

1  ft.  7J  iu.  X  2  ft.  4|  in.     (049  x  0-73.) 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL      297 

of  nymphs,  goddesses,  and  cupids,  not  unlike  in  style  to  those  of 
Diaz,  but  already  marked  by  that  firmness  of  design  and  by  the 
monumental  character  that  are  so  remarkable  in  his  later  work. 
The  study  of  Bathing  Women  (No.  642)  belongs  to  that  period. 

After  he  had  settled  at  Barbizon,  Millet,  whose  peasant  origin 
was  probably  the  cause  of  his  intense  sympathy  with  the  struggles 
and  hardships  of  the  field  labourers'  fatiguing  work,  devoted  his 
brush  to  creating  that  profoundly  moving  record  of  labour  and 
toil  which  constitutes  his  claim  to  be  considered  one  of  the 
world's  great  masters.  He  knew  how  to  invest  scenes  of  humble 
life  with  truly  monumental  grandeur,  and  brought  out  the  hope- 
less monotony  and  cruel  hardships  of  the  life  led  by  the  tillers 
of  the  soil  with  such  incisive  strength,  that  he  was  accused  of 
propagandist  tendencies.  Nothing,  however,  was  further  from 
his  aim.  He  was  an  artist  pure  and  simple,  who,  in  following 
his  own  unpopular  ideal,  preferred  to  suffer  neglect  and  extreme 
poverty  to  a  compromise  with  the  taste  of  the  vulgar. 

The  Women  Gleaning  (No.  644,  Plate  LII.)  may  be  considered 
his  supreme  achievement,  and  an  epitome  of  his  whole  art.  Millet 
alone  could  have  invested  so  bald  and  unpromising  a  subject 
with  so  much  epic  grandeur.  There  is  in  the  rhythmic  repetition 
of  the  action  of  the  two  women  in  the  centre  of  the  composition 
a  sense  of  the  inevitable  hopeless  monotony  of  labour  in  the  fields, 
even  if  the  picture  is  not  "  a  plea  against  the  misery  of  the  people." 
The  same  struggle  for  existence  and  the  resulting  physical  fatigue 
are  admirably  expressed  in  the  statuesquely  silhouetted  figure  of 
The  Weed-burner  (No.  2890).  The  Woodcutter  (No.  2895),  The  Straw- 
hinders  (No.  2892),  and  The  Winmmer  (No.  2893)  all  exemplify  this 
phase  of  Millet's  art.  The  domestic  life  of  the  peasantry  is  treated 
with  equally  profound  sympathy  in  Maternal  Precaution  (No.  2894), 
La  Couseuse  (No.  644a),  and  La  Lessiveuse  (No.  2891).     Among  his 

comparatively  rare  pure  landscape  subjects  The  Church  of  Greville 
38 


298  THE  LOUVRE 

(No.  641),  which  was  found  in  an  unfinished  state  in  the  artist's 
studio  after  his  death,  takes  very  high  rank.  It  is  as  remarkable 
for  the  simple  telling  truth  with  which  the  normal  aspect  of  the 
landscape  is  rendered,  as  the  Spring  (No.  643)  is  for  the  realisa- 
tion of  a  more  uncommon  effect — a  rainbow  and  the  shrill  accent 
of  sunlight  in  the  orchard  under  the  leaden  grey  of  the  departing 
thunder  clouds. 

DAUMIER 

What  Millet  did  for  the  life  of  the  country,  Honor^  Daumier 
(1808-1879)  did  for  the  life  of  the  town,  of  which  he  was  a 
shrewd  and  critical  observer.  But  his  long  practice  as  a  carica- 
turist made  him  look  upon  the  types  that  engaged  his  brush 
with  a  certain  cruel  bitterness  which  is  far  removed  from  Millet's 
human  sympathy.  With  a  palette  restricted  almost  to  black  and 
grey,  Daumier  yet  proved  himself  a  great  colourist  through  the 
infallible  accuracy  of  his  tone-values  and  the  suggestion  of  rich 
colour  in  his  almost  monochrome  schemes.  His  design  is  aS' 
massive  and  monumental  as  Millet's.  The  touch  of  the  macahrey 
which  is  so  characteristic  of  Daumier's  art,  is  very  evident  in  The 
Thieves  and  the  Donkey  (No.  2937).  The  Pwtrait  of  the  Painter 
Theodore  Rousseau  (No.  2938)  holds  a  hint  of  the  caricaturist's 
vision. 

COURBET 

Equally  far  removed  from,  and  hostile  to.  Classicism  and 
Romanticism  was  Gustave  Courbet  (1819-1877),  who  as  head  and 
founder  of  the  Realistic  school  exercised  a  prodigious  influence 
upon  nineteenth-century  art.  He  was  essentially  a  fighting  spirit, 
determined  to  overcome  official  hostility  to  his  revolutionary  prin- 
ciples. Excluded  from  public  exhibitions,  he  held  a  private  show 
of   his   own   works,    and    defended    his    theories    by    spoken   and 


PLATE  LII. — JEAN  FEANgOIS  MILLET 

(1814-1875) 

No.  644.— WOMEN  GLEANING 
(Lea  Glaneuses) 

In  a  harvest-field  three  female  gleaners,  seen  in  profile  to  the  left,  are  occupied  with  picking  up  blades 
of  corn.  Two  of  them  are  bending  right  down,  with  their  right  hands  touching  the  ground  ;  the  third 
woman  is  half  erect.  In  the  background  some  ricks,  a  cart  and  horses,  harvesters,  a  farm  building,  and  a 
horseman. 

Signed  on  right : — "  j.  f.  millet." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

2  It.  8|  in.  X  3  ft.  8^  in.     (0-82  x  1-12.) 


THE   NINETEENTH-CENTURY   FRENCH  SCHOOL     299 

written  arguments.  His  just  claim  was  that  it  did  not  matter 
what  you  paint,  but  how  you  paint  what  you  actually  see ;  and  in 
conformity  with  his  loudly  proclaimed  principles  he  often  chose 
subjects  that  were  offensive  to  the  taste  of  his  day.  At  the 
same  time  we  can  see  now  that  he  was  endowed  with  a  keen 
instinctive  feeling  for  pictorial  fitness,  and  that  most  of  his 
pictures  are  far  from  being  haphazard  snapshots  of  actuality.  In 
his  student  years  he  had  copied  many  masterpieces  by  Rembrandt, 
Velazquez,  Hals,  and  Van  Dyck,  How  much  he  benefited  from 
the  example  of  the  old  masters  is  to  be  judged  from  his  portrait 
of  himself,  known  as  The  Man  with  the  Leather-helt  (No.  147). 

By  far  his  most  famous  picture  is  the  gigantic  Funeral  at 
Ornans  (No.  143),  which,  as  a  study  of  the  life  and  types  in  a 
small  French  provincial  town,  has  aptly  been  compared  with 
Flaubert's  great  novel  Madame  Bovary.  Each  individual  head  in 
this  vast  composition  is  a  marvellous  study  of  facial  expression. 
In  his  landscapes,  again,  he  was  by  no  means  photographic,  and  he 
never  failed  to  consider  the  decorative  effectiveness  of  his  pictures. 
His  influence  upon  Whistler's  early  work  is  to  be  judged  from 
The  Wave  (No.  147a).  If  his  landscapes  retain  to  a  certain  extent 
the  atmosphere  of  the  studio,  such  pieces  as  La  Remise  des 
Chevreuils  (No.  145a)  and  Le  Ruisseau  du  Puits  rwir  (No.  146a) 
clearly  show  that  he  possessed  a  sound  understanding  of  the  way 
in  which  colours  react  upon,  and  modify,  each  other.  Courbet's 
revolutionary  tendencies  made  him  take  part  in  the  political 
movement  of  the  Commune,  and  forced  him  to  leave  his  native 
country.     He  died  in  Switzerland  in  1877. 

MEISSONIER 

It  was  realism  of  a  very  different  kind  that  made  public 
opinion    place    Jean    Louis   Ernest    Meissonier   (1815-1891)    on    a 


300  THE  LOUVRE 

pinnacle,  from  which  he  has  only  in  recent  years  been  transferred 
to  the  more  modest  position  due  to  him,  for  the  exquisite 
minute  care  he  bestowed  upon  the  working  out  of  insignificant 
details.  Meissonier  was  a  draughtsman  and  an  illustrator  rather 
than  a  painter.  As  a  colourist  he  does  not  count.  He  had  no 
appreciation  of  values,  textures,  substances,  and  surfaces.  Nothing 
Qould  be  more  to  the  point  than  Manet's  mordant  remark  that  in 
Meissonier 's  pictures  "everything  is  of  iron  except  the  cuirasses." 
Still,  the  mind  that  finds  delight  in  small  things  will  dwell  with 
pleasure  upon  the  microscopic  details  of  his  little  costume  pictures 
The  Flute  Player  (No.  2887),  The  Poet  (No.  2889),  and  several 
similar  "gems"  at  the  Louvre.  Strangely  enough  the  Portrait  of 
Mme.  Gerriot  (No.  2965),  which  he  painted  at  the  age  of  nine- 
teen, has  more  breadth  and  real  character  than  any  of  his  later 
works.  The  chief  task  of  Meissonier's  life  was  the  glorification 
of  Napoleon  i.'s  campaigns.  Of  this  famous  series  the  Louvre 
includes  no  example.  On  the  other  hand,  the  collection  owns 
three  important  historical  pictures  from  his  brush  in  Napoleon  III. 
ai  Solferino  (No.  2957),  which  long  hung  in  the  Luxembourg 
Gallery,  Napoleon  III.  surrounded  by  his  Staff  (No.  2958),  and  The 
Siege  of  Paris  (No.  2969),  in  the  painting  of  which  he  had  at 
least  the  advantage  of  personal  experience,  as  he  had  followed 
the  Emperor's  army  on  the  Italian  campaign,  and  was  in  Paris 
during  the  siege.  Altogether  the  Louvre  owns  no  fewer  than 
twenty-nine  paintings  by  Meissonier. 


RICARD 

If  Meissonier  is  beginning  to  find  his  proper  level  after 
having  been  grossly  overrated,  Louis  Gustave  Ricard  (1824-1873), 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  portrait  painters  of  his  century,  has 
only  just    in    recent    years    been    rescued   from    almost   complete 


THE  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  FRENCH   SCHOOL      301 

oblivion.  A  pupil  of  L.  Cogniet,  Ricard  spent  several  years  in 
copying  the  works  and  analysing  the  technical  methods  of  the  old 
masters,  and  in  travelling  in  Italy,  Belgium,  Holland,  and  England. 
It  was  not  before  his  return  to  Paris  in  1850  that  he  began  to 
exhibit.  Ricard  was  exclusively  a  portrait  painter.  Technically 
his  early  studies  enabled  him  to  arrive  at  a  method  of  singular 
morbidezza  and  warm  luminosity.  There  is  a  certain  truth  in  a 
modern  critic's  description  of  Ricard's  pigments  as  being  composed 
of  "crushed  jewels,  flower  juice,  and  gold  and  silver  powder." 
The  great  merit  of  Ricard's  portraits  is,  however,  his  extra- 
ordinary insight  into  his  sitters'  psychology.  To  him  a  portrait 
meant  more  than  a  correct  record  of  the  model's  superficial 
aspect :  he  endeavoured  to  paint  the  very  soul  in  so  far  as  it 
can  be  read  from  eyes  and  lips.  In  this  respect  he  is  the 
descendant  of  Giorgione  and  the  forerunner  of  Watts  and  Carriere. 
The  portraits  of  The  Painter  Heilbuth  (No.  778a),  of  Mrne.  de 
Calonne  (No.  778e),  of  His  Own  Pmirait  (No.  778),  and  the  badly 
cracked  Portrait  of  Paul  de  Mitsset  (No.  778b),  may  be  quoted  as 
admirable  instances  of  his  art. 


MANET 

We  must  close  this  necessarily  fragmentary  survey  of  French 
art  at  the  Louvre  with  the  mention  of  Edouard  Manet  (1832- 
1883),  whose  Olympia  (No.  613a,  Plate  LIII.)  is  the  first,  and  so 
far  the  only  painting  of  the  Impressionist  school  that  has  gained 
access  to  this  gallery.  It  was  formerly  exhibited  at  the  Luxem- 
bourg. Hung  as  it  is  now  in  Gallery  VIII.  amid  the  works 
of  David,  Gros,  Ingres,  Delacroix,  Delaroche,  and  other  early 
nineteenth  -  century  painters,  this  Olympia  fully  explains  the 
sensation,  but  certainly  not  the  indignation,  caused  by  its  first 
appearance  at  the  Salon  of  1865.     It  sings  out  with  such  brilliant 


302  THE  LOUVRE 

purity  of  colour  and  is  so  emphatic  in  the  patterning  of  its 
design,  so  daring  in  the  placing  side  by  side  of  almost  un- 
modulated but  infallibly  accurate  colour  masses,  that  everything 
around  appears  more  or  less  dingy  and  artificial.  Manet's  Olympia 
marks  the  dawn  of  a  new  era,  not  because  it  is  based  on  a  revolu- 
tionary rejection  of  tradition,  but  because  it  is  true  to  the  spirit 
of  the  best  tradition,  which  is  not  carried  on  by  literal  and 
mechanical  imitation,  but  by  evolution  and  adaptation  to  modem 
life  and  thought. 


PLATE  LIII.— fiDOUARD  MANET 

(1832-1883) 

No.  613a.— OLYMPIA 

A  nude  woman,  with  blue-edged  yellow  satin  slippers  on  her  feet,  a  narrow  black  riband  round  her 
neck,  and  a  gold  bracelet  on  her  right  arm,  is  reclining  on  a  bed,  her  right  arm  resting  on  the  cushion. 
Beneath  her  is  spread  a  yellowish,  flowered  Indian  shawl.  A  black  cat  with  raised  tail  stands  at  her  feet  on 
the  bed      Behind  the  bed  is  seen  a  negress,  who  brings  a  large  bouquet  of  flowers  to  her  mistress. 

Signed  on  left : — "  ed.  manet,  1865." 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

4  ft.  2  in.  X  6  ft.  3  in.     (1-27  x  1-90.) 


THE  BRITISH  SCHOOL 

IF  the  representation  of  French  art  at  the  National  Gallery  in 
London  is  admittedly  meagre  and  inadequate,  the  British 
section  at  the  Louvre  can  scarcely  be  considered  worthy  of 
serious  consideration.  Its  entire  removal,  with  the  exception  of 
about  half  a  dozen  pictures,  would  not  only  entail  no  serious  loss 
to  the  collection,  but  would  be  an  act  of  justice  to  the  reputation 
of  several  great  artists  who  are  here  made  responsible  for  pictures 
upon  which  they  presumably  never  set  eyes.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  quite  impossible  to  illustrate  the  progress  of  British 
art  by  the  two-score  or  so  examples  in  the  Long  Gallery,  part 
of  which  is  devoted  to  the  English  pictures.  Of  the  leading 
masters,  Hogarth  (1697-1764)  and  Gainsborough  (1727-1788)  will 
be  vainly  looked  for,  since  the  two  Landscapes  (Nos.  1811  and 
1811b)  attributed  to  the  latter  in  the  La  Gaze  Room  are  inferior 
conventional  compositions  in  Italian  taste,  which  can  no  more  be 
connected  with  the  name  of  Gainsborough  than  the  wretched  Still 
Life  which  has  lately  been  added  to  the  Louvre  collection. 

CONSTABLE  AND   HIS   IMITATORS 

In  view  of  the  powerful  influence  exercised  by  Constable  and 
the  British  Landscape  school  in  general  upon  modern  French  art, 
it  is  surprising  that  no  attempts  should  have  been  made  to  secure 
a  few  examples  of  greater  importance  and  more  certain  authen- 
ticity than  the  ones  now  exhibited.     Six  pictures  are  catalogued 

under  the  name  of  John  Constable  (1776-1837) ;  the  only  one  that 

303 


304  THE  LOUVRE 

can  be  unreservedly  accepted  as  the  work  of  his  brush  is  the 
little  view  of  Hampstead  Heath  (No.  1809,  Plate  LIV.),  which 
was  presented  to  the  Louvre  in  1877  by  the  painter's  son, 
Mr.  Lionel  Constable.  It  is  a  fresh,  masterly  study  for  the 
picture  in  the  Sheepshanks  collection  at  the  Victoria  and  Albert 
Museum. 

The  Weymouth  Bay  (No.  1808),  which  realised  as  much  as  £2240 
at  the  Marquis  de  la  Rochebrune's  sale  in  1873,  has  been  enthusiasti- 
cally commented  upon  by  Burger,  but  cannot  pass  the  ordeal  of 
searching  criticism.  It  is  incoherent,  and  in  the  details  of  the 
foreground  and  the  painting  of  the  figures  and  sheep  lacks  the 
purposeful  sureness  of  touch  which  is  the  hall-mark  of  Constable's 
art.  The  Cottage  (No.  1806)  has  the  same  provenance.  Mr. 
P.  M.  Turner,  in  an  article  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  suggests 
that  F.  W.  Watts,  a  feeble  imitator  of  Constable,  is  the  real  author 
of  this  timidly  executed  painting — an  attribution  which  is  certainly 
more  convincing  than  the  one  in  the  official  catalogue.  The  Glebe 
Farm  (No.  1810)  tallies  closely,  as  regards  the  superficial  aspect, 
with  the  picture  of  the  same  title  at  the  National  Gallery,  to  which 
it  is,  however,  so  inferior  as  to  put  Constable's  authorship  out  of 
the  question.  The  Windmill  (No.  1810a),  a  gift  of  Mr.  Sedelmeyer, 
seems  to  be  a  copy  of  the  Spring  at  the  Victoria  and  Albert 
Museum.  The  Rainbow  (No.  1807)  may  possibly  be  by  Constable, 
although  its  authorship  has  been  questioned  by  several  reliable 
authorities. 

t 

James  Webb  (1825  ?-1895),  a  painter  of  undeniable  talent  for 
imitating  the  manner  of  artists  greater  than  himself,  is  beyond 
much  doubt  responsible  both  for  the  Landscape  (No.  1820),  which  is 
officially  given  to  Richard  Wilson  (1714-1782),  and  for  the  view  of 
the  Font  Neuf  (No.  1819),  which  is  still  exhibited  as  an  example  by 
the  greatest  English  landscape  painter  J.  M.  W.  Turner  (1775-1851). 
Unfortunately  Turner's  name  has  to  be  added  to  Hogarth's  and 


PLATE  LIV.— JOHN  CONSTABLE 
(1776-1837) 

No.  1809.— HAMPSTEA.D  HEATH 

(Vue  de  Hampstead  Heath) 

A  wide-spreading  landscape  view,  with  little  incident,  from  Hampstead  Heath  looking  in  a  northerly 
direction. 

Painted  in  oil  on  canvas. 

1  ft.  li  in.  X  1  ft.  2i  in.     (0-26  x  0-36.) 


THE  BRITISH   SCHOOL  305 

Gainsborough's  in  the  list   of  eminent  British  masters  who  are 
not  represented  at  the  Louvre. 


BONINGTON 

That  Richard  Parkes  Bonington  (1801-1828)  should  be  seen  to 
better  advantage  in  this  collection,  is  only  natural  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  by  his  training  at  the  £cole  des  Beaux- Arts  in  Paris  and 
under  Gros  he  belongs  to  the  French  rather  than  to  the  English 
school.  He  was  closely  allied  by  the  bond  of  friendship  to  Delacroix, 
and  played  an  important  part  in  the  romantic  movement.  The  two 
little  pictures  Frangois  I.  and  the  Duchesse  d'Etampes  (No.  1802)  and 
Mazarin  and  Anne  of  Austria  (No.  1803)  are  conceived  quite  in  the 
spirit  of  the  French  Romanticists.  Bonington's  genius  as  a  colourist 
is,  however,  best  displayed  in  the  sparkling  and  animated  View  of 
Venice  (No.  1805).  Admirable,  too,  in  their  spontaneous  freshness 
are  the  View  of  the  Gardens  at  Versailles  (No.  1804)  and  the  View  of 
the  Coast  of  Nwmandy  (No.  1804a).  The  Old  Governess  (No.  1805a), 
one  of  Bonington's  rare  attempts  at  portraiture,  is  remarkable  for 
the  accentuation  of  the  modelling,  which  somehow  suggests  the 
broad  treatment  of  the  planes  adopted  by  a  wood-carver. 

The  picture  which  is  catalogued  as  La  Halte  (No.  1814),  by 
George  Morland  (1763-1804),  is  merely  a  poor  copy  of  that  artist's 
painting  The  Public-home  Boor,  engraved  by  Ward.  It  was  presented 
to  the  Louvre  by  the  proprietors  of  the  magazine  L'Art. 

When  we  come  to  the  great  school  of  British  portrait  painting, 
we  have  to  record  at  least  two  or  three  masterpieces  worthy  of 
being  included  in  a  great  museum.  A  picture  of  unquestioned 
authenticity  and  great  charm  is  the  Portrait  of  Master  Hare 
(No.  1818b)  by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  (1723-1792),  who  in  this,  as  in 
other  similar  pieces,  proved  himself  the  painter  par  excellence  of 
childhood  in  all  its  innocence  and  ingenuousness,  even  though  this 

39 


306  THE  LOUVRE 

picture  is  by  no  means  impeccable  as  regards  draughtsmanship. 
The  Master  Hare  was  bequeathed  to  the  Louvre  by  Baron  Alphonse 
de  Rothschild  in  1905.  The  badly  repainted  Portrait  of  a  Lady 
(No.  1818a)  in  a  white  dress,  and  with  powdered  hair,  is  certainly 
not  the  work  of  Sir  Joshua,  under  whose  name  it  figures  in  the 
catalogue. 

RAEBURN 

Among  the  recent  additions  to  the  Louvre  collection  is  the 
excellent  life-size  portrait  of  Captain  Robert  Hay  of  Spot,  by  Sir 
Henry  Raeburn  (1756-1823),  which  still  hangs  on  a  screen  in 
Gallery  XV.  and  has  not  yet  been  provided  with  a  number.  It  is 
a  full-length  portrait  of  the  sitter,  in  uniform  of  scarlet  coat,  white 
breeches,  black  gaiters,  and  fur  busby,  his  hand  resting  upon  his 
gun,  standing  against  a  conventional  landscape  background  with 
a  sky  of  characteristic  tawny  hue.  The  picture  was  formerly  in 
the  collection  of  Mr.  Sanderson,  at  the  sale  of  which,  in  1908,  it 
was  bought  by  Messrs.  Agnew  for  650  gs.  To  Raeburn  are  also 
ascribed  the  extremely  puzzling  Portrait  of  an  Old  Sailor  (No.  1817), 
which,  in  spite  of  certain  technical  affinities  with  the  British 
eighteenth-century  school,  is  so  un-English  in  spirit  that  it  would 
be  rash  to  ascribe  it  to  any  master  of  that  school ;  the  negligeable 
Portrait  of  Anna  Moore,  Authoress  (No.  1817a)  ;  also  the  utterly 
commonplace  and  wretchedly  drawn  Mrs.  Ma/ionochie  and  Child 
(No.  1817b),  which  was  bought  in  1904,  together  with  the  equally 
questionable  Portrait  of  a  Lady  and  a  Young  Boy  (No.  1812b), 
by  Hoppner,  for  £4000. 


SIR  THOMAS   LAWRENCE 

The  strangely   exaggerated  estimation  in  which  Sir  Thomas 
Lawrence  (1769-1830)  is  held  by  French  connoisseurs,  is  to  a  certain 


THE  BRITISH   SCHOOL  307 

extent  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  superb  quality  of  the  picture  by 
which  he  is  best  known  in  France :  the  portrait  group  of  J.  J. 
Angerstein  and  his  Wife  (No.  1813a)  at  the  Louvre,  which  was 
acquired  in  1896  for  £3000.  This  fine  group  displays  all  his  bravura 
and  pleasing  freshness  and  brightness  of  colour,  without  any  of  the 
vulgar  tricks  and  shallow  mannerisms  of  his  later  years.  Next  to 
it  should  be  mentioned  the  charming  half-length  life-size  Portrait  of 
Mary  Palmer  (No.  1813c),  in  a  yellow  dress,  seated  in  a  garden. 
The  completely  wrecked  Portrait  of  Lord  Whitworth,  English 
Ambassador  to  France  in  1802  (No.  1813),  and  the  Portrait  of  a  Man 
(No.  1813d),  are  of  no  artistic  significance. 

Neither  is  it  necessary  to  dwell  upon  the  mediocre  Brother  and 
Sister  (No.  1801),  by  Sir  William  Beechey  (1753-1839) ;  the  Pwtrait 
of  Charlotte  Sophia  of  Mecklenhurg-Strelitz,  Princess  of  Wales  (No. 
1818),  by  Allan  Ramsay  (1713-1784) ;  and  the  Portrait  of  Lamartine, 
French  Poet  and  Politician  (No.  1816a),  by  Henry  Wyndham  Phillips 
(1820-1868).  The  Woman  in  White  (No.  1816)  is  at  least  a  sound 
piece  of  craftsmanship,  even  if  the  attribution  to  John  Opie  (1761- 
1807),  "the  Cornish  Wonder,"  is  subject  to  doubt. 

OTHER  PORTRAIT  PAINTERS 

We  have  already  mentioned  the  portrait  group  (No.  1812b),  a 
picture  in  deplorable  condition,  to  which  the  name  of  John  Hoppner 
(1758?-1810)  has  been  attached  without  sufficient  reason.  No  less 
doubtful  is  the  authenticity  of  the  Portrait  of  the  Countess  of 
Oxford  (No.  1812a),  a  meretricious  picture  which  serves  to  show 
the  mannerisms  and  striving  after  prettiness  of  Lawrence's  rival, 
rather  than  the  more  estimable  qualities  by  which  his  better 
achievements  are  distinguished. 

George  Romney  (1734-1802),  on  the  other  hand,  is  seen  in  his 
most  serious  mood  in  the  Portrait  of  Sir  John  Stanley  (No.  1818c) — 


308  THE  LOUVRE 

a  thoroughly  honest  "likeness,"  well  drawn,  and  painted  straight- 
forwardly, without  tricky  accents  and  mechanical  recipes.  On  a 
screen  in  Gallery  XV.  has  been  temporarily  placed  a  recently 
acquired  Portrait  of  the  Artist,  by  Romney.  He  is  seated,  palette  in 
hand,  in  a  landscape  background.  The  features  are  well  modelled, 
and  the  light  and  shade  managed  with  considerable  skill. 

Strangely  enough  the  most  remarkable  English  picture  at  the 
Louvre  is  by  a  little  known  painter,  who  is  not  represented  in  any 
of  the  leading  British  galleries.  Charles  Howard  Hodges  (1764^ 
1837),  who  was  born  in  London,  but  went  at  the  age  of  twenty-four 
to  Holland,  where  he  spent  the  rest  of  his  life,  was  really  a  mezzotint 
engraver,  in  which  craft  he  had  been  trained  by  John  Raphael 
Smith.  He  produced  many  plates  after  pictures  by  the  Dutch 
masters,  and  also  painted  a  few  portraits,  among  them  the  masterly 
Portrait  of  a  Woman  (No.  1812),  at  the  Louvre.  At  a  time  which 
was  too  much  given  to  conventionality  and  to  the  desire  to  please 
by  concessions  to  a  popular  craving  for  prettiness,  this  picture 
strikes  a  note  of  almost  brutal  realism.  It  is  painted  with 
surprising  vigour  and  with  an  appreciation  of  correct  tone-values, 
in  a  low  key,  which  heralds  the  art  of  the  Glasgow  school  in  the 
later  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

With  The  Bathing  Woman  (No.  1810b),  by  William  Etty  (1787- 
1849),  and  The  Watering  Place  (No.  1815),  by  William  Muh-eady 
(1786-1863),  we  reach  the  full  decadence  of  the  British  school  in 
early  Victorian  days  before  the  great  revival  initiated  by  the  pre- 
Raphaelites. 


INDEXES 


I.  INDEX  OF  ARTISTS 


Albani,  Francesco,  5,  119, 
Albertinelli,  11,  43,  46. 
Altichieri,    Altichiero,    79,   85, 

105. 
"  Alunno  di  Domenico,"  34,  42. 
Amberger,  C,  133. 
Ambrogio  da  Fossano,  94. 
Ambrogio  da  Predis,  35,  97. 
"  Amico  di  Sandro,"  41. 
Andrea  dal  Castagno,  25,  28,  30. 
Andrea  de  Milan,  193. 
Andrea  del  Sarto,  2,  3,  45-46, 

186,  239. 
Angelico,  Fra,  10,  22-24,  26- 

27,  126. 
Anguissola,  Sofonisba,  103. 
Anselmi,  Michelangelo,  47. 
Antonello  da  Messina,  65,  95. 
Portrait  of  a  Condottiere,  Plate 

IX. 

Antoniazzo  Romano,  55-56. 
Arellano,  Juan  de,  190. 
Arentzen,  Arent,  216. 
Artois,  Jacob  van,  154, 
Asselyn,  Jan,  217. 
Audran,  Claude,  261. 

Bacchiacca,  46. 
Backhuysen,  Ludolf,  222. 
Bagnacavallo,  H.,  60,  115. 
Baldovinetti,  Alessio,  28,  30-32, 

53. 
Balducci,  Matteo,  50. 
Balen,  Hendrick  van,  137,  146, 

149, 156. 
Bamboccio,  221, 
Baroccio,  117. 

Bartolo  di  Maestro  Fredi,  17, 
Bartolommeo  di  Giovanni,  34, 
40 


Bartolommeo,  Fra,  43,  44. 
Bartolommeo  Veneto,  66. 
Bassano,  Jacopo,  73,  76,  173. 
Bassano,  Leandro,  73,  190. 
Bastiani,  Lazzaro,  65. 
Becoafumi,  50. 
Beechey,  Sir  Wm.,  307. 
Beerstraten,  Abrahamsz,  222. 
Bega,  Cornelis,  208. 
Begeyn,  Abraham,  220. 
Beham,  Hans  Sebald,  162. 
Bellechose,  Henri,  228. 
Bellegambe,  Jan,  230. 
Bellini,  Gentile,  61-63,  65—66, 

68,  69,  109. 
Bellini,   Giovanni,    61-64,    66, 

68-69,  95. 
Bellini,  Jacopo,  61-65,  80,  85, 

105. 
Bellini,  Niccolosia,  80. 
Belotto,  Bernardo,  78. 
Benozzo  Gozzoli,  11,  25. 
Benson,  Ambrosius,  130. 
Benvenuti,   Giovanni    Battista, 

91. 
Berchem,  Nicolaes,   213,   220- 

221. 
Berckheyde,  Gerrit,  222. 
Bermejo,  Bartolomd,  233. 
Berreguete,  172. 
Berrettini,  Pietro,  87. 
Bertin,  N.,  291. 
Besozzo,  Michelino  da,  93. 
Bianchi,  Francesco,  11, 107, 113. 
Bicci  di  Lorenzo,  21. 
Bicci,  Lorenzo  di,  21. 
Blomaert,  Abraham,  197,  224. 
Bloot,  Pieter  de,  216. 
Boccaccino,  Boccaccio,  103. 
309 


Bol,  Ferdinand,  205. 
Boltraffio,  10,  66,  98. 
Bonifazio  Veronese,  73. 
Bonington,  R.  P.,  281,  289-290, 

305. 
Bono  da  Ferrara,  86. 
Bononi,  Bartolommeo,  99. 
Bonsignori,  92. 
Bordone,  Paris,  10,  72. 
Borgognone       (Ambrogio       da 

Fossano),  94-96. 
Borgognone  (Le  Bourguignon), 

253. 
Bosch  van  Aeken,  Hieronymus, 

130,  154. 
Both,  Jan,  217. 
Botticelli,  29,  34,  39-41. 

Giovamm  degli  Alhizzi  and  the 
Three  Cfraees,  Plate  v. 

Botticini,  Francesco,  42. 
Boucher,    Franfois,    246,   258, 
265-269. 
Vulcan     presenting     Arms     to 
Venus,  Plate  XL. 

Boulogne,  Bon,  251-252. 
Boulogne,  Louis,  251-252. 
Boulongne,  Jean  de,  243. 
Bourdichon,  239. 
Bourdon,  S^bastien,  200,  249. 
Bouts,  Dierick,  125-126,    154, 

193,  216. 
Bramante,  58,  91,  92. 
Bramantino,  92. 
Breenberg,  221. 
Brekelenkam,  Quiryn,  210. 
Bril,  Matthias,  138. 
Bril,  Paul,  137-138. 
Broederlam,  Melchior,  123. 
Bronzino,  Agnolo,  11,  46. 


310 


INDEXES 


Brouwer,     Adriaen,     152-153, 

208,  212. 
Brueghel,  "  Hell,"  149. 
Brueghel,  Jan,  137,  141,  167. 
Brueghel    the     Elder,    Pieter, 

136-137,  152. 
Brueghel  the  Younger,  Pieter, 

137. 
Brunelleschi,  27. 
Brusasorci,  Domenico,  85. 
Brusasorci  the  Younger,  77. 
Bruyn,  Bartolomaus,  161. 
Bugiardini,  43. 
Buonconsiglio,  Giovanni,  109. 
Butinone,  Bernardino,  92. 

Calcar,  Giovanni,  72,  195. 
Calvaert,  Denis,  115. 
Campi,  Bernardino,  100,  103. 
Campin,  Robert,  124-125. 
Canale,  Antonio,  78. 
Canaletto,  78. 
Cantarini,  S.,  120. 
Caravaggio,  Michelangelo,  120, 

151,  177,  224,  243. 
Cardi,  Lodovico,  47. 
Carducho,  Vincente,  190. 
Cariani,  68. 
Caroto,  Francesco,  87. 
Carpaccio,  Vittore,  10,  65. 
Carpi,  Alessandro  da,  107. 
Carracci,  Agostino,  118. 
Carracci,   Annibale,    5,    6,    10, 

119,  138. 
Carracci,  Antonio,  119. 
Carracci,  Lodovico,  118. 
Carreuo  de  Miranda,  Juan,  183, 

190. 
Carrifere,  301. 
Casanova,  Frangois,  78. 
Castagno,  Andrea  dal,  25,  28,  30. 
Castiglione,  G.  B.,  118. 
Catena,  Vincenzo,  66. 
Caterina  di  Vigri,  116. 
Cavedone,  Jacopo,  107. 
Cazes,  267. 
Cellini,  Benvenuto,  2. 
Cenni  de'  Pepi,  Giovanni,  19. 
Cerquozzi,  M.  A.,  118. 
Cesare  da  Sesto,  39,  97. 
Champaigne,  Philippe  de,  155, 

258. 


Chardin,  J.  B.  S.,  13,  258,  260, 
267-268,  271. 
Qrciee  before  Meai,  Plate  XW. 

Cigoli,  H.,  47. 

Cima,  Giovanni  Battista,  11,  64. 
Cimabue,  11,  15,  19. 
Civerchio,  105. 
Claesz,  Pieter,  220. 
Claeszoon,  Alart,  195. 
Claude,  6,  157,  217,  247-248, 
257,  274,  289. 
View   of    a    Sea    Fort,     Plate 
xxxviii. 

Clouet,  Frangois,  237. 
Clouet,  Jean,  235-236. 
Codde,  Pieter,  207. 
Cogniet,  L.,  301. 
Collantes,  Francisco,  190. 
Coltellini,  Michele,  92. 
"  Compagno  di  Pesellino,"  30. 
Constable,  John,  281,  289-290, 
292,  294,  303-304. 
Ham2istead  Heath,  Plate  Liv. 

Conti,  Bernardino  de,  38,  97. 
Cooper,  T.  Sidney,  R.A.,  218. 
Coques,  Gonzales,  150,  154. 
Corneille  de  Lyon,  238. 
Cornelissen,  Cornelia,  199. 
Corot,  J.  B.  C,  290-292. 
The  Well,  Plate  XLIX. 

Correggio,  7,  9,  107,  113-114, 
117,  177,  278. 
Marriage     of     St.     Catherine, 
Plate  XV. 

Cossa,  Francesco,  90,  101. 
Costa,  Lorenzo,  5,  90-91,  101- 

102,  115. 
Coter,  Colin  de,  133. 
Cotes,  Francis,  271. 
Cottignola,  Zaganelli  da,  60. 
Courbet,  Gustave,  298. 
Courtois,  Jacques,  253. 
Cousin,  Jean,  240. 
Couture,  Thomas,  288. 
Coxie,  Raphael  van,  151. 
Coypel,  Antoine,  252. 
Coypel,  Charles  Antoine,  252. 
Coypel,  Noel,  252. 
Coypel,     Noel     Nicolas,     252, 

267. 
Craesbeeck,  Joos  van,  152. 
Cranach  the  Elder,  Lucas,  162. 


Cranach   the   Younger,   Lucas, 

163. 
Crayer,  Gaspar  de,  151. 
Credi,  Lorenzo  di,  11. 
Crespi,  G.  M.,  120. 
Crivelli,  Carlo,  64,  80. 
Cuevas,  Pedro  de  las,  190. 
Cuyp,  Aelbert,  8,  217. 

Dalraau,  Luis  de,  171-172. 
Daniele  da  Volterra,  47. 
Daubigny,     Charles     Fran9ois, 
295-296. 
The  Weir  Gait  at  Opttvot,  Plate 

LI. 

Daumier,  H.,  298. 
David,  Gerard,  128-130,  193. 
Marriage  at  Cana,  Plate  xviii. 

David,  Jacques  Louis,  254,  269, 
275-276,  278. 
Portrait  ofMme.  Sicamier,  Plate 

XLV. 

De  La  Fosse,  Charles,  252. 
Debar,  B.,  264. 
Decker,  Cornells,  217. 
Delacroix,   Eugfene,    250,    279, 
281-283,  285,  290,  295. 
DaiUe  and  Virgil,  Plate  xivn. 

Delaroche,  Paul,  285,  288,  295. 

Delli,  Dello,  171. 

Denner,  Baltasar,  167. 

Desportes,  Francois,  258. 

Dev^ria,  Joseph,  289. 

Diamante,  Fra,  28. 

Diaz  de  la  Pefia,  N.,  290,  294- 

295. 
Diepenbeeck,     Abraham     van, 

151. 
Dietrich,  Christian  W.,  168. 
Dolci,  Carlo,  118. 
Domenichino,  5,  10,  119,  245. 
"  Domenico,  Alunno  di,"  34. 
Domenico  Veneziano,  26,  31. 
Donatello,  27,  31,  79-80. 
Donducci,  G.  A.,  120. 
Dossi,  Dosso,  65,  91-92. 
Dou,  Gerard,  208-211,  215. 

The    Dropsical    Woman,   Plate 
xxxii. 

Drake,  Sir  Francis,  196. 
Drost,  Comelis,  205. 


INDEXES 


311 


Drouais,  F.  H.,  270. 
Dubois,  Ambrose;  241. 
Duccio  di  Buoninsegna,  15,  19. 
Ducbatel  Collection,  30. 
Duchatel,  Francois,  154. 
Duck,  Jacob,  207. 
Dulin,  264. 

Dupr^  Jules,  293-294. 
The  Pond,  Plate  L. 

Duquesnoy,  245. 
Diirer,  Albrecht,  159,  161-162, 
195. 

"Eclectics,"  117-119. 
Eeckhout,  G.  van  den,  205. 
Elias,  Nicholas,  205. 
Elsheimer,  Adam,  167,  257. 
Engelbrechtsen,  Cornelis,  194. 
Ercolede'Roberti  Grandi,  88-89. 
Ercole  Roberti,  90-91. 
Escosura,  183,  189. 
Ettore  de'  Bonacossi,  89. 
Etty,  William,  R.A.,  308. 
Everdingen,  AUart  van,  218. 

Fabritius,  Karel,  213,  214. 
Faes,  Pieter  van  der,  205. 
Farinati,  Paolo,  87. 
Fassolo,  Bernardino,  197. 
Fei,  Paolo  di  Giovanni,  171. 
Ferramola,  Floriano,  105-106. 
Ferrari,  Defendente,  111. 
Ferrari,  Francesco  Bianchi,  107, 

113. 
Ferrari,  Gaudenzio,  111. 
Feti,  Domenico,  117. 
Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo,  30,  50,  53. 
Flandrin,  Hippolyte,  289. 
Fliack,  Govaert,  205. 
Floris,  Frans,  138. 
Foppa,  Vincenzo,  93-94,  106. 
Fosse,  Charles  de  La,  252. 
Fouquet,  Jean,  231,  233. 
Fragonard,  J.  H.,  258,  260,  268- 

269,  274. 
Music  Lesson,  Plate  XLII. 
Francesca,  Piero  dells,  or  Fran- 

ceschi,  Piero  dei,  13,  30,  31, 

53,  84. 
Francesco  di  Giorgio,  50. 
Francia,  Francesco,  46,   55-56, 

102,  105,  115. 


Francia,  Giacomo,  102. 
Franciabigio,  46. 
Franck,  Frans,  138. 
Franck  the  Third,  Frans,  138. 
Franck  the  Younger,  Frans,  138. 
Francken,  Sebastiaen,  157. 
Franco  Bolognese,  99. 
Fr^minet,  Martin,  241. 
Froment,  Nicolas,  232. 
Fungai,  Bernardino,  50. 
Fyt,  Jan,  151. 

Gaddi,  Agnolo,  21. 

Gaddi,  Taddeo,  21. 

Gainsborough,!., R.  A.,  303-304. 

Garofalo,  91. 

Geertgen  tot  S.  Jans,  193. 

Gentile  de  Fabriano,  11,  53,  62, 

85. 
Gerard,  Baron  F.  P.  S.,  '277. 
Gerard  of  Haarlem,  193. 
G^ricault,   J.  L.  A.   Theodore, 

281-282, 
The  Baft  of  the  "Medusa,"  Plate 

XLVI. 

G^rin,  261. 
Ghiberti,  Lorenzo,  26. 
Ghirlandaio,  Benedetto,  33. 
Ghirlandaio,  Davide,  33. 
Ghirlandaio,  Domenico,  11,  24, 
32-34. 
Portrait  of  an  Old  Man  and  his 
Oraiidson  ("The  BoUle-noscd 
Man  "),  Plate  iii. 

Ghirlandaio,   Ridolfo,    34,    46, 

57. 
Giambono,  Michele,  61. 
Gillot,  Claude,  261,  264. 
Giltinger,  Gumpold,  166. 
Giordano,  Luca,  121,  171,  191. 
Giorgione,   6,    40,   46,  64,   66, 
,      68-70,  73. 

Pastoral  Symphony,  Plate  x. 

Giottesques,  20,  61. 

Giotto,  11,  16,  19-21,  27,  69, 

79,  101. 
Giovanni  d'Allemagna,  63. 
Giovanni  di  Paolo,  17,  50. 
Giovanni  Francesco  da  Rimini, 

53. 
Giovenone,  Girolarao,  111. 
Girard  d'Orleans,  228. 


Girodet  de   Roucy-Trioson,    A. 

L.,  277. 
Girolamo  da  Carpi,  90. 
Girolamo  dai  Libri,  87. 
Girolamo  di  Benvenuto,  50. 
Ginlio  Romano,  56,58-60,  115, 

117. 
Glauber,  220. 
Goebouw,  256. 
Goltzius,  Hendrick,  199. 
Gossart,  Jan,  132-134,  236. 
Goya,  191-192. 
Gozzoli,  Benozzo,  11,  25. 
Grandi,  Ercole  de'  Roberti,  90- 

91. 
Grebber,  Pieter  de,  206,  220. 
Greco,  El,  173-176. 
Greuze,  J.  B.,  269-272. 

The  Broken  Pitcher,  Plate  XLIII. 

Grief,  Anton,  157. 
Grimaldi,  G.  F.,  120. 
Grimou,  J.  A.,  259. 
Gros,   Baron  A.   J.,   277,   278, 

282,  288,  305. 
Griinewald,  M.,  162-163. 
Guardi,  Francesco,  78,  274. 
Guercino,  10,  120. 
Guerin,  P.  N.,  276,  279,   281, 

286. 

Hals,  Dirk,  206. 
Hals,  Frans,  152, 198-201,  206, 
249,  299. 
The  Oipsy   Girl,  Plate  xxvil,; 
Portrait  of  a  Lady  in  Black, 
Plate  xxviii. 

Heda,  Willem  Claesz,  223. 
Heem,  David  de,  167,  223. 
Heem,  J.  Davidsz  de,  223. 
Heemskerck,  Egbert  van,  224. 
Heinsius,  Johann  E.,  168. 
Herrera   "the  Old,"  Francisco, 

175,  180. 
Heusch,  Guilliam  de,  220. 
Hobbema,  Meindert,  219. 
Hodges,  C.  H.,  308. 
Hogarth,  W.,  271,  303-304. 
Holbein  the  Elder,  Hans,  163. 
Holbein   the    Younger,    Hans, 

38,  159,  161,  163,  236,  284. 
Portrait    of    £rasmus,     Plate 

XXIV. 


312 


INDEXES 


Hondecoeter,  Melchior,  224. 
Hondius,  Abraham,  224. 
Honfchorst,  Gerard,  224. 
Hooch,  Pieter  de,  213-214. 
Dutch  Interior,  Plate  xxxv. 

Hoppner,  John,  K.A.,  306-307. 
Huet,  Paul,  289. 
Huysmans,  Cornells,  154. 
Huysum,  Jan,  223. 

Ingegno,  L',  56. 

Ingres,  J.  A.  D.,  254,  277,  283- 
285. 
The  Spring,  Plate  XLViii. 
Innocenzo  da  Imola,  115. 
Isabey,  Eugfene,  277,  294,  295. 
Isenbrant,  Adriaen,  129. 

Jacobello  del  Fiore,  61,  66-67. 
Jacque,  Charles,  293. 
Janssen,  Cornells,  198. 
Janssens,  Abraham,  151. 
Jardin,  Karel  du,  221. 
Jordaens,  10,  66,  150,  252. 
Jouvenet,  Jean,  253. 

Kalf,  Willem,  223. 
£Auffmann,  Angelica,  168. 
Knupfer,  K,  210,  212. 
Koeck,  Pieter,  136. 
Koninck,  Philips  de,  274. 

Laer,  Pieter  van,  221. 
Lairesse,  Gdrard  de,  220,  225. 
Lancret,  K,  264. 
Largillifere,    Nicolas    de,    254, 

256,  259. 
Lastman,  Pieter,  202,  204. 
Lawrence,  Sir  T.,  P.R.A.,  306. 
Le  Bran,  Charles,  5,  75,  244, 

249-251,  257,  273. 
Le  Brun,  Mme.  Vigee,  272. 

Portrait  of  the   Artist  and  her 
Daughter,  Plate  XLIV. 

Lefebvre,  Claude,  254. 

Le  Guillon,  Jenny,  283. 

Lely,  Sir  Peter,  205,  256. 

Le  Moine,  F.,  265. 

Le   Nain,  Antoine,  244,  248- 

249,  258. 
Le  Nain,  Louis,  244,  248-249, 

258. 


Le  Nain,  Matthieu,  244,  248- 

249,  258. 
Leonardo  da  Vinci,  2,  3,  6,  23, 
34-40,  64,  95,  97,  117,  162, 
239,  278. 
Portrait  of   Mona  Lisa,   Plate 
IV.  (Frontispiece). 

L^pici^,  N.  B.,  271. 

Le    Sueur,    P^ustache,   8,    244, 

248. 
Liberale  da  Verona,  86. 
Lievens,  Jan,  204. 
Limborch,  H.  van,  225. 
Lingelbach,  221. 
Lippi,  Filippino,  29,  43-44. 
Lippi,  Fra  Filippo,  11,  27-30, 

39,  41. 
Madonna  and  Child  with  Angels 
and  Two  Abbots,  Plate  u. 

Lodi,  Calisto  Piazza  of,  106. 
Lomellini,  Orazio,  103. 
Lorenzetti,  Ambrogio,  17. 
Lorenzetti,  Pietro,  17. 
Lorenzo  de'  Fasoli,  100. 
Lorenzo  di  Bicci,  21. 
Lorenzo   di   Credi,    11,  34-35, 

39. 
Lorenzo  di  Pa  via,  100. 
Lorenzo  Monaco,  22-23,  27. 
Lotto,  Lorenzo,  64,  153. 
Lucas  van  Leyden,  194. 
Liiini,  Bernardino,  96. 
Lutero,  Giovanni,  89,  91-92. 

Mabuse,  Jan,  132-134,  236. 
Portrait    of    Jran     Carondelet, 
Plate  XX. 

Maes,  Nicolas,  214. 
Mainardi,  Bastiano,  32,  33-34. 
"Maitre    de    Fli^malle,"    124- 

125. 
"Maitre  de  Moulins,"  228-230. 
Malouel,  Jean,  227. 
Malwaele,  Jan,  227. 
Manet,  Edouard,  300-302. 
Olymjna,  Plate  Liil. 

Manfredi,     Bartolommeo,     98, 

15L 
Manni,  Giannicola,  56,  60. 
Mantegna,  Andrea,  5,   11,  55, 

61,  80-83,  105. 
Pamass^is,  Plate  xiv. 


Maratta,  Carlo,  118. 
Martini,    Simone,    16-17,    229, 
232. 
Christ  bearing  Bis  Cross,  Plate  I. 

Masaccio,    17,    22-23,   27,   29, 

31. 
Masolino,  22. 
Massone,  Giovanni,  100. 
"Master  of  1456." 
"  Master  of  St.  Severin,"  160. 
"Master   of   the   Bartholomew 

Altar,"  159-160. 
"  Master  of  the  Death  of  Mary," 

160. 
"Master   of  the  Female   Half 

Figures,"  194, 
"  Master  of  the  Ursula  Legend," 

161,  230. 
Matsys,      Quentin,     130-131, 

210. 
The    Banker    and    his     Wife, 
Plate  XIX. 

Matteo  di  Giovanni,  50. 
Mazo,  J.  B.  del,  184,  189. 
Mazzolino,  Lodovico,  91. 
Meissonier,  J.  L.  K,  299-300. 
Meldolla,  Andrea,  72. 
Memlinc,    Hans,    13,   125-128, 
131,  216. 
Portrait  of  an  Old  Lady,  Plate 

XVII. 

Memmi,  Lippo,  17. 

Mengs,     Raphael,      168-169, 

191. 
Mercier,  P.,  263. 
Metsu,  Gabriel,  8,  215-216. 
Meulen,  A.  F.  van  der,  258. 
MichaUon,  A.  K,  291. 
Michel,  Georges,  289. 
Michelangelo,  23,  40,    42,    76, 

117-118,  240. 
Michelino  da  Pa  via,  91. 
Miel,  Jan,  157. 
Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz,  197. 
Mignard,  Pierre,  250. 
Mignon,  Abraham,  167. 
Millet,  Francisque,  157. 
Millet,  J.   F.,  290,  292,  295- 

298. 
Women  Cleaning,  Plate  Lll. 

Modena,  Barnaba  da,  107. 
Modena,  Tommaso  da,  107. 


INDEXES 


313 


Molyn  the  Elder,  Pioter,  211- 

212. 
Moni,  Louis  de,  225. 
Monnoyer,  J.  B.,  252. 
Montagna,  Bartolommeo,  109. 
Montagna,  Benedetto,  109. 
Moor,  Karel  de,  210,  224. 
Mor,  Sir  Antonis,  195-196. 
Morales,  Luis,  172-173. 
Moreau,  Louis  Gabriel,  274. 
Moreelse,  Paulus,  199. 
Moretto,  Alessandro,  10,  106. 
Morland,  George,  305. 
Moroni,  GiamlDattista,  106. 
Mostaert,  Jan,  195. 
Moyaert,  Claes,  220. 
Mulready,  William,  308. 
Munari,  Pellegrino,  107. 
Murillo,  B.  K,  8,  12,  185-189. 
The     Immaculate     Conception, 
Plate  XXVI. 

Natoire,  268. 
Neefs,  Pieter,  157. 
Neer,  Aart  van  der,  217. 
Neer,  Eglon  van  der,  224. 
Neri  di  Bicci,  21. 
Netscher,  Caspar,  212. 
Nicasius,  258. 
Niccol6  da  Foligno,  54. 
Niccol6  deir  Abbate,  240. 
Nooms,  Reynier,  221. 
Nuzi,  Alegretto,  53. 

Oderigi  of  Gubbio,  101. 
Oggiono,  Marco  d',  10,  36,  97. 
Ommeganck,  B.  P.,  187. 
Oostsanen,  Jacob  Gornelisz  van, 

194. 
Opie,  John,  R.A.,  307. 
Orbetto,  77. 
Orcagna,  Andrea,  22. 
Oriolo,  86. 
Orizonte,  157. 

Orley,  Barend  van,  133-134. 
Ortolano,  91. 
Oudry,  J.  B.,  259. 
Ouwater,  Albert  van,  129,  193. 

Pacchia,  Girolamo  del,  50. 
Pacchiarotto,  50. 
Palamedesz,  207. 


Palma  Vecchio,  67,  73. 

Adoration  of  tlie  Shepherds,  with 
a  Female  Dvnor,  Plate  XI. 

Palmezzano,  Marco,  60. 
Panetti,  Domenico,  91. 
Panini,  Giovanni  Paolo,  100. 
Paolo  di  Giovanni  Fei,  17. 
Parenzano,  Bernardo,  83. 
Parmigianino,  114,  118. 
Parrocei,  Joseph,  253. 
Patel,  Pierre,  257. 
Patel,  Pierre  Antoine,  257. 
Pater,  J.  B.,  264. 
Pellegrino,  Antonio,  77,  239. 
Pencz,  Georg,  162. 
Pereda,  Antonio,  190. 
Perreal,  Jehan,  229-230,  239. 
Perugino,  5,  11-12,  46,  50-51, 

54-56. 
St.  Sebastian,  Plate  VI. 
Peruzzi,  Baldassare,  50. 
"  Pesellino,  Compagno  di,"  30. 
Pesellino,  Francesco,  11,  28-29, 

53. 
Phillips,  H.  W.,  307. 
Piazza,  Calisto,  106. 
Piazza,  Martino,  106. 
Pickenoy,  205. 
Piero  di  Cosimo,  11,  27,  34,  42- 

43. 
Pietro  da  Gortons,  87. 
Pinturicchio,  50,  55-56. 
Piombo,  Sebastiano  del,  3,  46, 

67-68. 
Pisanello,  Antonio,  62,  79,  85, 

86,  103. 
Poelenburg,  C.  van,  206. 
Polidoro  Lanzani,  72. 
Pollaiuolo,  Antonio,  31,  40. 
Pollaiuolo,  Piero,  31-32. 
Pontoriuo,  Jacopo  da,  46. 
Pot,  Hendrick,  206,  223. 
Potter,  Paul,  10,  220,  293. 
PourbuB    the   Younger,   Frans, 

138. 
Poussin,  Gaspard,  248. 
Poussin,  Nicolas,  5,   138,   157, 

245-246,  275,  285. 
The    Shepherds     in     Arcadia, 
Plate  xxxvii. 

Prandino,  Ottaviano,  105. 
Pre-Eaphaelites,  308. 


Primaticcio,    2,    59,    115,    118, 

239-240. 
Prud'hon,  Pierre,  278-279. 
"  Pseudo-Boccaccino,"  103. 
"  Pseudo-Mostaert,  195. 
Pynacker,  Adam,  220. 

Eaeburn,  Sir  H.,  E.A.,  306. 
Raffaelino  del  Garbo,  11,  42. 
Raffaelle  dei  Carli,  42. 
Raimondi,  Marc  Antonio,  115. 
Ramenghi,  Bartolommeo,  60. 
Ramsay,  Allan,  271,  307. 
Raoux,  Jean,  260. 
Raphael,  2,  5,  7,  9, 12,  23,  29, 40, 
46,  55,  56-60,   66-68,   114, 
117-118,  134,  248,  284-285. 
La  Belle  Jardiniere,  Plate  vii.  ; 
Portrait  of  Baldassare  Castig- 
lione,  Plate  vili. 

Ravesteyn,  Jan  van,  197. 
Regnault,  Henri,  288. 
Regnault,  J.  B.,  276. 
Rembrandt,  8,  10,  58,  66,  135, 
167,  194,  199,  201-205,  208, 
214-216,  223,  256,  260. 
Christ  and  the  Pilgrims  at,  Em- 
maus,  Plate  xxix.  ;  Portrait  of 
Hendriclje  Stoffels,  Plate  xxx. 

Reni,  Guido,  5-6,  10,  119. 
Reynolds,  Sir  J.,  P.R.A.,  272, 

305-306. 
Ritelta,  177. 

Ribera,  120,  176-179,  191,  277. 
Ricard,  L.  G.,  300-301. 
Ricci,  Sebastiano,  77. 
Ricciarelli,  47,  117. 
Riccio,  Felice,  77. 
Rigaud  y  Eos,  Hyacinthe,  254, 

255. 
Robert,  Hubert,  268,  273-274. 
Eobfirt-FIeury,  J.  N.,  289. 
Roberti,  Ercole,  90-91. 
Roelas,  Juan  de  las,  176. 
Roghman,  Roeland,  216. 
Rokes,  209. 
Romanino,  103. 
Romano,  Giulio,  56,  58-60,  115, 

117. 
Romney,  George,  307-308. 
Rondinelli,  Niccol6,  68. 
Roos,  P.  P.,  167. 


314 


INDEXES 


Rosa  de  Tivoli,  167. 

Eosa,  Salvator,  120,  273. 

Rosselli,  Cosimo,  11,  32,  42. 

Rosselli,  Matteo,  47. 

Rosso  Fiorentino,  2,  46,  239. 

Rosso,  Francesco,  46. 

Rosso,  Giovanni  Battista,  2,  46, 

239. 
Rottenhammer,    Johann,     137, 

167. 
Roucy-Trioson,    A.   L.   Girodet 

de,  277. 
Rousseau,  Thdodore,  290,  292, 

294-295,  298. 
Roymerswaele,     Marinus    van, 

131. 
Rubens,  P.  P.,   3,   7,    10,    66, 

111,  125,  131,  135-139,  141, 

146,  149,  151-153,  155,  171, 

241,  254,  258,  263,  266,  281. 

Henry  /v.   leaves  for  the   War, 

Plate  XXI.  ;  HiUne  Fourment 

and    two    of    her    Children, 

Plate  XXII. 

Ruisdael,    Jacob   van,    8,   218, 

222,  290. 
Ruthart,  Carl,  167. 
Ruysdael,    Salomon   van,    217, 

222. 
Ryckaert,  David,  151, 

Sacchi,  Pier  Francesco,  99. 

Saftleven,  Cornelis,  206. 

Saftleven,  Herman,  217. 

Salaino,  37-38,  95. 

Salviati,  46. 

Sano  di  Pietro,  49. 

Santerre,  J.  B.,  254. 

Santi,  Giovanni,  56. 

Santvoort,  D.  van,  206. 

Sassetta,  17,  49. 

Sassoferrato,  118. 

Savoldo,     Giovanni     Girolamo, 

63-64,  105. 
Scarsellino,  90. 
Scbalcken,  Godfried,  209. 
Scheflfer,  Ary,  285. 
Schiavone,  Andrea,  72.  ■. 

Schiavone,  Gregorio,  80,  92.  j 

Schidone,  Bartolommeo,  107.        ! 
Schoevaerts,  Mathys,  157.  i 

Schbngauer,  Martin,  131.  | 


Sohweickhardt,   Heinrich   Wil- 

helm,  168. 
Scorel,  Jan,  194-195. 
Scotto,  Stefano,  96. 
Seghers,  David,  151, 
Sellaio,  Jacopo  del,  41. 
Semitecolo,  Niccol6,  61, 
Seybold,  Christian,  168. 
Siberechts,  Jan,  155. 
Signorelli,  50. 
Simone  Martini,  16,  17. 

Christ  hearing  His  Cross,  Plate  1. 
Slingelandt,  J.  A.  van,  211. 
Snyders,  Frans,  149,  151,  258. 
Sodoma,  50,  111. 
Sogliani,  46. 
Solario,  Andrea,  95-96. 
Solario,  Cristoforo,  95. 
Sorgh,  H.  M.,  208. 
Southwell,  Sir  Richard,  165. 
Spaendonck,  C.  van,  223. 
Spagnoletto,  120,  176-179, 191, 

277. 
Spanzotti,  Martino,  111. 
Speranza,  Giovanni,  109. 
Squarcione,   Francesco,  80,  94, 

105. 
Stamina,  22,  171. 
Steen,  Jan,  211-213. 

Bad  Company,  Plate  xxxiv. 

Steenwyck,  Hendrik  van,  222. 
Stefano  da  Zevio,  28. 
Suardi,  Bartolommeo,  94. 
Subleyras,  P.,  260. 
Sustermans,  Justus,  156. 
Swanenburgh,  Jacob  van,  201. 
Swanevelt,  Herman  van,  210. 

Taddeo  di  Bartolo,  17. 
Taraval,  H.,  267. 
Tassi,  Agostino,  247. 
Tempel,  A.  van  den,  210. 
Teniers  the  Elder,  David,  153. 
Teniers    the    Younger,   David, 

6,  153-154. 
Terborch,  Gerard,  8,  211-213, 

221. 
Concert,  Plate  xxxiii. 

Testorino,  Bartolommeo,  105. 
Theotocopuli,  D.,  173-176. 
Tibaldi,  Pellegrino,  115,  118. 
Tiepolo,  77,  269. 


Tintoretto,     74,     76-77,     117, 

167,  173. 
Tisi,  Benvenuto,  91. 
Titian,  4,  6,  9,  38,  66-72,  76, 
87,  106,  118,  135,  146,  153, 
173,  246,  261,  263,  266. 
Man  with  a  Glove,  Plate  xil.  ; 
Entombment,  Plate  xiil. 

Tocque,  Louis,  270-271. 
Trioson,  277. 
Tristan,  Luis,  175. 
Troy,  J.  F.  de,  261. 
Troyon,  Constant,  293. 
Tura,  Cosimo,  89-90,  107. 
Turchi,  Alessandro,  77. 
Turner,  J.  M.  W.,  RA.,   248, 
304. 

Uccello,  Paolo,  26-27,  31,  42. 
Ugolino  da  Siena,  17. 

Valentin,  Le,  243. 

Van  Balen,  137,  146,  149,  156. 

Van  den  Berghen,  Dirk,  220. 

Van  Beyeren,  A.,  223. 

Van  Bloemen,  Jan  Frans,  157. 

Van  Breda,  Jan,  157. 

Van  Cleef  the  Elder,  Joos,  160- 

161,  236. 
Van   Dyck,    10,   66,    146-150, 

155-156,     190,     198,     206, 

254-255,  299. 
Portrait    of    Charles    I.,    Plate 

XXIII. 

Van   Eyck,    Hubert,    124-126, 

130. 
Van  Eyck,  Jan,   10,  65,   123- 
126,  129-130,  172,  216. 
The  Virgin  and  Child  and  the 
Chancellor  Jlolin,  Plate  ivi. 

Van  Falens,  Carl,  157. 
Van  der  Goes,  Hugo,  216. 
Van  Goyen,  Jan,  8,  212,  216, 

218,  222. 
Van  Goyen,  Margaretha,  212, 
Van  der  Hagen,  Joris,  217. 
Van  Heemskerck,  200. 
Van  der   Heist,  Bartholomeus, 

8,  205. 
Shooting  Prize,  Plate  xxxi. 

Van  Hemessen,  Jan,  133. 
Van  der  Hey  den,  Jan,  221. 


INDEXES 


315 


Van  Leyden,  Lucas,  125. 

Van  Loo,  Carle,  265. 

Van  Loo,  Charles  Andr4  265. 

Van  Loo,  J.  B.,  264. 

Van  Loo,  J.  C,  264. 

Van  Loo,  Jacob,  206. 

Van  Mander,  Karel,  199. 

Van  der  Meer  van  Delft,  Jan, 

214. 
Van  der  Meer  of  Haarlem,  Jan, 

214. 
Van  der  Meulen,  Adam  Trans, 

154-156. 
Van  Mieris  the  Elder,  Frans,  210. 
Van  Mieris,  Willem,  225. 
Van  Mol,  Pieter,  151. 
Van  der  Neer,  Aart,  217. 
Van  Noort,  Adam,  140,  150. 
Van  Oost  the  Elder,  Jacob,  157. 
Van  Oostsanen,  Jacob  Cornelisz, 

194. 
Van  Orley,  Barend,  133,  193. 
Van  Ostade,  Adriaen,  207,  212. 
Van  Ostade,  Isack,  8,  208,  217. 
Van  Ouwater,  Albert,  129,  193. 
Van    Roymerswaele,    Marinus, 

131. 
Van  Staveren,  J.  A.,  211. 
Van  Stry,  Jacob,  218. 
Van  Veen,  Otto,  139-140. 
Van  de  Velde,  Adriaen,  218. 
Van  de    Velde    the   Younger, 

Willem,  222. 
Van  de  Venne,  Adriaen,  207. 
Van  Vliet,  H.,  206. 
Van  der  Weyden,  Roger,  124, 

126,  129,  131,  133,  160. 
Vanni,  Francesco,  51. 


Vanni,  Turino,  21. 
Varotari,  Alessandro,  77. 
Vecchia,  Pietro  della,  77. 
Vecchietta,  49-50. 
Velazquez,  135,  174,  176,  179- 
186,  190,  299. 
Portrait  of  Infavta  Margarita, 
Plate  XXV. 

Veneto,  Bartolommeo,  66. 
Veneziano,  Bartolommeo,  66. 
Veneziano,  Domenico,  26,  31. 
Veneziano,  Stefano,  61. 
Venius,  Octavius,  139-140. 
Verbruggen,  G.  P.,  157. 
Verhaecht,  Tobias,  139. 
Verkolie,  Jan,  224. 
Vermander,  200. 
Vermeer  van  Delft,  Jan,  214. 
The  Lace-Maker,  Plate  xxxvi. 
Vernet,  Carle,  273,  279. 
Vernet,  Claude  Joseph,  273. 
Vernet,  Horace,  273. 
Vernet,  Joseph,  272-273. 
Veronese,  Bonifazio,  73. 
Veronese,   Paolo,    5,  6,  74-77, 

87,  261. 
Verrocchio,  Andrea  del,  30-31, 

34,  39. 
Verspronck,  Gerard,  197. 
Vestier,  Antoine,  271. 
Vicenza,  Battista  da,  107. 
Victoors,  Jan,  205. 
Vien,  J.  M.,  275. 
Vig^e  Le  Brun,  Mme.,  272. 

Portrait  of  tht  Artist  and  her 
Daughter,  Plate  XLIV. 

VinoL     See  Leonardo  da  Vinci. 
Viti,  Timoteo,  55,  56,  102. 


Vivarini,  Alvise  (or  Luigi),  63- 

64,  93,  109. 
Vivarini,  Antonio,  62-63. 
Vivarini,  Bartolommeo,  63. 
Vlieger,  Simon  de,  222. 
Volterra,  Daniele  da,  47,  117. 
Von    Calcar,    Johan    Stephan, 

72,  195. 
Vos,  Paul  de,  151. 
Vouet,  Simon,  243,  248-250. 

Watteau,   Antoine,    241,    248, 
259-264. 
Embarkation  for  the  Island  of 
Cythera,  Plate  xxxix. 

Watts,  F.  W.,  304. 
Watts,  G.  F.,  301. 
Webb,  James,  304. 
Weenix,  Jan,  224. 
Weenix,  J.  B.,  221,  224. 
Werff,  Adriaen  van  der,  225. 
Wils,  Jan,  220. 
Wilson,  Richard,  304. 
Wohlegmut,  Michael,  161,  231. 
Wouwerman,  Philips,  8,  219. 
Wouwerman,  Pieter,  219. 
Wynants,  Jan,  218. 
Wyntrack,  219. 

Ysenbrant,  Adriaen,  129. 

Zacchia,  Paolo,  47. 
Zaganelli  da  Cottignola,  60. 
Zenale,  94. 
Zoppo,  Marco,  92. 
Zuccato,  Sebastian,  69. 
Zurbaran,  176-177. 
Zustris,  L.  F.,  206. 


II.  GENERAL  INDEX 


Academy  of  Arts,  French,  6. 

Adoration  of  the  Lamb,  at 
Ghent,  10. 

Aix,  Cathedral  at,  232. 

Albizzi,  Giovanna  degli,  33,  40. 

Albrecht,  Archduke,  144,  148. 

Albrecht  of  Mayence,  Arch- 
bishop, 162. 


Alexander  iv..  Pope,  25. 
Alexander  vi..  Pope,  70. 
Alexander  the  Great,  250. 
Alfonso  da  Ferrara,  69,  70. 
Alfonso  d'Avalos,  71,  75. 
Allied  Powers,  10,  19. 
Alva,  Duke  of,  197. 
Amboise,  39. 


Amsterdam,  201-220. 

Andrd,  Mme.,  127. 

Anne  of  Austria,  143. 

Antonio  LittaViscontiArese,97. 

Antwerp,  16,  129-130,  133- 
134,  138-139,  141,  146,  148, 
152,  196,  198,  223,  231, 
241,  256. 


316 


INDEXES 


Archduke     Leopold     William, 

153. 
Arenberg  Collection,  140. 
Arezzo,  15. 

Armagnac,  General  d',  127. 
Aschaffenburg,  125. 
Ascoli,  64. 
Augsburg,  163. 
Autun,  124. 
Avignon,  229,  232. 
Aytona,  Francisco  d',  147. 

Badajoz,  172. 
Baltazar  Carlos,  Don,  184. 
Bamberg,  Felix,  86. 
Barbadori  Chapel,  29. 
Barbizon,   13,    290,    292,   296- 

297. 
Barnevelt,  Olden,  197. 
Basle,  164. 
Bavaria,   Charles   Louis,   Duke 

of,  224. 
Bavaria,  Eupert,  Prince  of,  149. 
Beauvais  Tapestry,  259,  265. 
Benson,  Mr.  R.  H.,  88. 
Bentivoglio  Family,  101. 
Berenson,  Mr.  B.,  v,  17,  30-31, 

34,  38,  41,  43. 
Berenson,  Mrs.,  30. 
Beresteyn  and  Family,  Nicolaes, 

199-200. 
Berlin,    10,    16,    25,    66,    128, 

202,  231-232,  272. 
Bermudez,  Ccan,  188. 
Bernardo  di  Salla,  63. 
Blackfriars,  148. 
Bodenhausen,     Freiherr     von, 

128. 
Bologna,  9,  99,  115-116,  118- 

120. 
Bologna,  Treaty  of,  9. 
Bonaparte,  Lucien,  128. 
Borghese  Gallery,  147. 
Borgia,  Lucrezia,  70. 
Borromeo,    Cardinal    Federigo, 

137. 
"  Bottle-nosed  Man,"  24. 
Bourgeois  Sale,  172. 
Brancacci  Chapel,  Florence,  22, 

27. 
Brant,  Isabella,  140. 
Brera,  93. 


Brescia,  93,  105. 
Browning,  22. 
Bruges,  125-130,  172. 
Brussels,    10,    125,    136,    141, 

276. 
Buckingham,  Duke  of,  37. 
Buen  Retiro  Palace,  190. 
Burnet,  Bishop,  166. 
Buti,  Francesco,  28. 
Buti,  Lucrezia,  28. 
Buti,  Spinetta,  28. 
Byron,  Lord,  283. 
Byzantine  Miniaturists,  15. 
Byzantinism,  61, 

Caisse  des  Musees,  13. 

Cambridge,  200. 

Campana    Collection,     12,    41, 

62,  87. 
Campo  Formio,  Peace  of,  75. 
Carondelet,  Jean,  132-133. 
Casio  Family,  96. 
Castiglione,  Baldassare,  58. 
Cavenaghi,  Prof.,  36. 
Celier,  John  du,  126. 
Cento,  9. 

Chantilly,  231,  235-236,  282. 
Charles  I.  of  England,  4,  37-38, 

58,  67,  69,  70,  148,  150,  206. 
ffis  Portrait,  Plate  xxnt. 
Charles  ii.,  255. 
Charles  iii.  of  Spain,  168,  191. 
Charles  v.,  1,  76,  116, 132, 196, 

212. 
Charles  vii.,  231. 
Charles  viii.,  229. 
Charles  ix.,  237-238. 
Charles  x.,  12,  270. 
Charles  d'Amboise,  94. 
Chateau  Gaillon,  95. 
Chatsworth  Sketch-book,  147. 
Christie's,  133. 
Christus    (or    Cristus)    Petrus, 

124. 
Cleves,  Anne  of,  166. 
Cloux,  Manor  House  of,  39. 
Clovis,  173. 

Cluny  Museum,  Paris,  161. 
Colbert,  6,  156,  251. 
Colmar,  163. 
Cologne,  126,  161,  172. 
Colonna  Palace,  Rome,  90. 


Colonna,  Vittoria,  76. 

Compiegne,  204. 

Constantinople,  62. 

Cook,  Mr.  Herbert,  68,  77. 

Cook,  Sir  Frederick,  70. 

Corneille,  245. 

Cosimo  II.,  Grand-Duke,  of 
Tuscany,  157. 

Cossio,  Senor,  174. 

Covarrubias,  Diego  and  An- 
tonio, 174. 

Crivelli,  Lucrezia,  38. 

Croft,  Jeronimo,  73. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  4,  70,  113. 

Dandolo,  Doge  Enrico,  61. 

Dantzig,  131. 

Darius,  250. 

Darnley,  Lord,  145. 

Davidists,  279. 

Delamarre,  M.  L.,  56. 

Delft,  212,  213. 

Descartes,  Rend,  200,  249. 

Devonshire,  Duke  of,  77. 

Dijon,  228. 

Dolce,  L.,  68. 

Douai,  230. 

Drawing  in  the  Louvre,  38, 131. 

Dresden,  78,  272. 

Du  Barry,  Madame,  149,  269. 

Duchatel,    12,    131,    133,   196, 

284. 
Dulwich  College   Gallery,  141, 

154,  205. 
Dutch  Independence,  201. 

"Eclectics,"  117-119. 
Ecouen,  Chateau  d',  36. 
Edward  vi.  of  England,  196. 
Elector     of     Saxony,     Johann 

Friedrich  in.,  163. 
Elector  Palatine,  Charles  Louis, 

149. 
Eleonora  of  Austria,  76-77. 
Elissa,  M.  H.  R.,  183. 
Elizabeth  of  Austria,  238. 
Emperor,  German,  262. 
Empire,  Second,  12. 
Erasmus,  38. 

Eremetani,  Church  of  the,  80. 
Escorial,  173. 
Este,  Beatrice  d',  38. 


INDEXES 


317 


Este  Family,  89. 

Este,  Ginevra  d',  86. 

Este,  Isabella  d',  55. 

Este,  Leonello  d',  62,  86. 

Este,  Niccol6  d',  86. 

Este,  The  Court  of  Isabella  d', 

5,  101. 

Exposition  Universclle  of  1900, 
13. 

Family  of  the  Virgin,  100. 
Fausti,  Andrea,  45. 
F^libien,  257. 
Ferdinand,  Infante,  151. 
Ferrara,  9,  83,  89,  101. 
Ferron,  38. 

Ferroni^re,  La  Belle,  38. 
Fesch,  Cardinal,  41. 
Floreins,  James,  127. 
Florence  Academy,  53. 
Foix,  Gaston  de,  103. 
Fondaco  de'  Tedeschi,  68. 
Fontainebleau,  Chateau  de,  2-3, 

6,  35,  37,  58,  67,  142,  239, 
241,  290. 

Fourment,  H^lfene,  145. 

Her  Portrait,  Plate  xxii. 
Fourment,  Susanne,  144. 
Foumier-Sarlovfeze,    Lieutenant- 

General,  278. 
Franjois  i.,  2-3,  35,  37,  58,  59, 

67,  115,  235,  237,  239,  240. 
His  Portrait,  71,  76. 
Franfois  ii.,  3,  237. 
French    Primitives,   Exhibition 

of,  227,  228,  231. 
Frick,  Mr.  H.  C,  203. 
Frizzoni,  Dr.,  87. 

Galileo,  289. 
Garriga,  130. 
Gattamelata,  79. 
Gatteaux,  M.,  12,  127. 
Gautier,  Theophile,  38. 
Gay,  Mr.  Victor,  24. 
Genoa,  118,  146-147. 
George  of  Amboise,  Cardinal,  95. 
Ghent,  10,  123,  130. 
Giovanni  da  Bologna,  73. 
Glasgow,  204. 

Gobelins  Manufactory,    6,  156, 
249. 

41 


Godefroy,  C,  268. 
Gonzaga,  Federigo,  70. 
Gonzaga,  Francesco,  101. 
Gonzaga,    Vincenzo,    Duke    of 

Mantua,  140. 
Gotha,  141. 
Goths,  The,  79. 
Gower,  Lord  Konald,  290. 
Grandidier,  13. 
Greenwich,  222. 
Guastavillani,  Filippo,  102. 
Guidobaldo,    Duke  of   Urbino, 

57. 
Guillaume  de  St.  Amour,  25. 
Guillemardet,  192. 
Guimard,  Marie,  269. 

Haarlem,  193,  198,  223. 

Hague,  184,  197,  213,  225. 

Hague,  Potter's  Bull  at  the,  10, 
220. 

Hampton  Court,  206. 

Harrach  Collection,  194. 

Heath,  Mr.,  127. 

Henri  ii.,  3,  237-238. 

Henri  iv.,  3,  37,  139,  142,  261, 
289. 

Henrietta  Maria,  37. 

Henry  viii.,  76,  166. 

Heraclius,  Emperor,  22. 

Hermitage  Gallery,  St.  Peters- 
burg, 143,  268,  272. 

Herz,  Mr.,  127. 

His  de  la  Salle,  M.,  12,  39. 

Houbraken,  213. 

Houssaye  Collection,  Arsene, 
200. 

Howard,  Earl  of  Surrey,  Henry, 
165. 

Iconoclasta,  135. 
Infanta  Margarita,  181. 
Innocent  in.,  Pope,  20,  24. 
Inquisition,  Spanish,  135,   171, 

196,  289. 
Isabella  Clara  Eugenia,  148. 
Isabella,  Infanta,  144. 
Italy,    Van    der    Weyden    in, 

125. 

Jabach,  Eberhard,  4-5,  38,  67, 
69-71. 


Jean-sans-Peur,  Duke  of  Bur- 
gundy, 228. 

Joconde,  La,  Plate  iv.  (Frontis- 
piece), 36. 

Johanna  of  Austria,  144. 

Josephine,  Empress,  276. 

Julius  II.,  Pope,  43,  57,  100. 

Kaempfen,  M.,  202. 
Kann  Collection,  202. 
Kann,  M.  Kodolphe,  13. 
Keyser,  Thomas  de,  202. 
Kleinberger,  M.,  128. 
Kratzer,  Nicolas,  164-165. 
Kriidner,  Baroness  von,  168. 

La  Belle  Ferroniere,  97. 

La  Belle  Jardiniere,  2,  46,  57, 

59,  66. 
La  Caze,  Dr.,  12,  153. 
La  Fontaine,  260. 
La  Joconde,  Plate  iv.  (Frontis- 
piece), 36. 
Lallemant,  M.,  13. 
Lambeth  Palace,  165. 
Laura  de'  Dianti,  69,  70. 
Leczinska,     Marie,     Queen     of 

Louis  XV.,  271. 
Lennox,  James  Stuart,  Duke  of, 

149. 
Leo  X.,  Pope,  57-58,  60,  115. 
Les  Andelys,  245. 
Leyden,  193-194,  212. 
Leys  Sale,  137. 
Liechtenstein  Gallery,  232. 
Lille,  131. 
Liverpool,  134. 
Loeches,  Convent  of,  144. 
Lopez,  Don  Alfonso,  58. 
Loreto,  9. 
Louis  IX.,  24,  25. 
Louis  XI.,  231. 
Louis  XII.,  76,  229. 
Louis  XIII.,  3,  38,  142,  244. 
Louis  XIV.,    3-8,    38,    58,    67, 

130,    156,    244,    249,    251, 

253,  255,  257,  275. 
Louis  XV.,  7, 149,  260,  269-270, 

273. 
Louis   XVI.,    8,    168,  211,   225, 

275. 
Louis  xvni.,  11. 


318 


INDEXES 


Louis  Philippe,  11,  229,  282. 
Louvre,  Spoliation  of  the,  10. 
Lucrezia  Borgia,  70. 
Luxembourg,    Palais   de,    3,   7, 

139,  142,  144,  261. 
Lyons,  11,  58,  229,  238. 

Maciet,  M.,  13,  229. 
Maconochie,  Mrs.,  306. 
Madonna  della  Sedia,  9. 
Maintenon,  Marquise  de,  251. 
Malatesta,  Pandolfo,  62. 
Malatesta,  Parisina,  84. 
Malatesta,  Sigismondo,  62,  84. 
Manetti,  Antonio,  27. 
"Mannerists,"  117. 
Mansard,  Fran9ois,  156. 
Mantua,  70-71,  83,  99, 115, 138. 
Mantua,  Duke  of,  4,  140. 
Maria  Theresa,  168,  182. 
Mariana  of  Austria,  181-182. 
Marie  Antoinette,  272. 
Marriage    at    Cana,   by   Paolo 

Veronese,  75. 
Marseilles,  Gallery  at,  11. 
Martin  v..  Pope,  18. 
Mary  Cleophas,  33. 
Mary  of  England,  76,  196. 
Maubeuge,  132. 
Mazarin,  Cardinal,  5-6,  57-68, 

7L 
Meazzu  Collection,  128. 
Medici,  Casa,  26. 
Medici,  Cosinio  de',  26. 
Medici  Family,  30. 
Medici,  Francesco  de',  143-144. 
Medici,  Leopold  de,  157. 
Medici,  Lorenzo  de',  58-59. 
Medicis,  Catherine  de,  3,  237. 
M(5dicis,  Marie  de,  3,  93,  138- 

139,  142,  144,  241. 
Mddicis  Series  of  paintings  by 

Eubens,  142. 
Milan,  66,  71,  105,  128. 
Mocenigo,  Pietro,  74. 
Modena,  9,  88,  107. 
Momlingen,  125. 
Mona   Lisa,  Portrait  of,  Plate 

IV.  {Frontispiece),  36. 
Moncada,  Marqucjs  de,  147. 
Montmorency,  Constable  de,  36. 
More,  Sir  Thomas,  164. 


Morgan,  Mr.  J.  Pierpont,  33. 
Morris  Moore,  12,  55. 
Moulins,  228. 
Munich,  39,  143. 
Miinster,  Peace  of,  197,  211. 
Murano  School,  63. 

Naples,  137, 177, 179,  243,  272. 
Napoleon  i.,  9,  19,  53-54,  75, 

119,  124,  187,  238,  276,  278, 

300. 
Napoleon  in.,  300. 
Narbonne,  Autel  de,  228. 
Nardus,  M.,  128. 
National  Art-Collections  Fund, 

13. 
National  Assembly,  8. 
National  Convention,  8. 
National    Gallery,   25-26,    35, 

40,  57,    64,    86,  90,  91,  94, 

97,  144,  193,  211,  213,  223, 

281,  303. 
"Naturalists,"  117,  120-121. 
Nuremberg,  161,  195. 

Oldenburg,  194. 

Olivarez,  Count  Duke  of,  180, 

184. 
Osnabriick,  197. 
Ossuna,  Duke  of,  189. 
Otlet  Sale,  134. 

Padua,  79,  94. 

Panigarola,  93. 

Paracelsus,  194. 

Paris,  138. 

Parma,  9,  107,  113. 

Passeri,  Marchesa,  90. 

Pavia,  93,  99,  105. 

Pazzi,    Church     of     S.    Maria 

Maddalena  dei,  33. 
Pereire,  Isaac,  174. 
Perrault,  Claude,  156. 
Perugia,  9. 
Pesaro,  9. 

Philip  II.,  69,  71, 173,  195-196. 
Philip  III.,  140. 
Philip   IV.,   4,    176,    180,   183, 

189. 
Philippe-Auguste,  1. 
Piacenza,  9. 
Picault,  45. 


Pieve  di  Cadore,  72. 
Piles,  Roger  de,  257. 
Pinacoteca  Estense  at  Modena, 

107. 
Pisa,  15,  19,  25. 
Pitti  Palace,  9,  57. 
Pompadour,  Mme.  du,  265. 
Porter,  Endymion,  148. 
Potocki,  Count,  71. 
Pourtal^s-Gorgier  Sale,  65. 
Poussinistes,  257. 
Pozzo,  Cassiano  del,  37. 
Prato,  28. 

Prim,  General,  288. 
Primitive  Italian  Pictures,  10. 
Primitives,  Exhibition  of  French, 

227-228,  231. 

Quevedo,  189. 
Quthe,  Pierre,  237. 

Ravenna,  9. 

R(5camier,  Mme.,  275. 

Renan,  M.  Ary,  30. 

Ren(5,  King,  232. 

Rennes,  230. 

Republic,  Second,  12. 

Retahle  du  Parliament,  230. 

Riccardi  Palace,  26. 

Eichardot,  Jean  Grusset,  146. 

Richelieu,  Cardinal,  5,  37,  246. 

Richmond,  Duke  of,  149. 

Rimini,  9,  85. 

Rio,  Louis  de,  196. 

Rolin,      Chancellor      Nicholas, 

124. 
Rome,  9,   15,   18,  24-25,   115, 

120,  137-138,  167,  173,  177, 

243,  247,  249,  260,  273-274, 

278,  283,  291. 
Rospigliosi,    Marie    Madeleine, 

118. 
Rothschild,  Baron  Arthur   de, 

219. 
Rothschild,  Baroness  N.  de,  41. 
Rothschild  Collection  at  Wad- 

desdon  Manor,  209. 
Rothschild  Family,  13. 
Rovero,  Cardinal  Giuliano  della, 

100. 
Roverella  Family,  89. 
Royal  Academy,  London,  36. 


INDEXES 


319 


Rubenistes,  257. 
Rucellai  Madonna,  15. 
Ruskin,  40. 
Ruyter,  Admiral  de,  150. 

St.  Bruno,  248. 

St.  Cosmo  and  St.  Damian,  30- 

31. 
St.  Denis,  228. 

St.  Gregory  the  Great,  17-18. 
St.  Jerome,  Legend  of,  49. 
St.  Omer,  133. 
Saint-Yenne,   M.   de    la   Fonte 

de,  7. 
Salon  of  1673,  250. 
Salon,  the,  8. 
San  Gimignano,  25. 
Santa  Fiora,  Contessa  di,  90. 
Saskia  van  Uylenborch,  203. 
Scrovegno,  Enrico,  79. 
Sebastiani,  General,  144. 
Sedelmeyer,  M.,  13,  304. 
Seville,  187,  188. 
Sforza,  Anna,  70. 
Sforza,  Francesco,  35. 
Sforza,  Lodovico  (II  Moro),  35- 
'     36,  38,  97,  105. 
Siena,  15,  111. 
Sigmaringen,  131. 
Sixtus  IV.,  Pope,  100. 
Sketch-books  of  Jacopo  Bellini, 

62. 
Sociite  des  Amis  du  Louvre,  13, 

30,  237. 
Somz^e  Collection,  230. 
Soult,  Marshal,  12,  186-187. 
Spain,  22,  120,  127,  132,  135, 

144,  171,  211,  244,  294. 
Steen,  Castle  of,  145. 
Steengracht,      Baron      H.     A., 

213. 


Stockholm,  130. 

Stoffels,  Hendrickje,  203-204. 

ITer  Portrait,  Plate  xxx. 
Stuttgart,  66,  202. 
Sultan  Soliman,  76. 
Surrey,    Henry   Howard,    Earl 
of,  165. 

Tarnowski,  Count,  203. 
Temple  I^ewsam,  160. 
Thompson,  Mr.  F.  Yates,  55. 
Thorny    Thifery,    13,    292-293, 

296. 
Toledo,  172-173. 
Tolentino,  Treaty  of,  9. 
Tornabuoni,  Giovanna,  40. 
Tornabuoni,  Lorenzo,  40. 
Tournai,  125. 
Tours,  11,  231,  235,  237. 
Toussaint,  Abbe,  133. 
Trainel,  Baron  de,  231. 
Transfiguration,  Raphael's,  9. 
Trcjmoille,  Due  de  la,  30,  131. 
Tromp,  Admiral  Cornells,  216. 
Tuileries,  Palace  of  the,  3,  12. 
Tulipomania,  223. 
Turin,  125,  128. 
Turkey,  243. 
Tuscany,  Duke  of,  33. 

Uffizi  Gallery,  41,  57,  165. 

Ulm,  232. 

Ursins,  Guillaume  Juv(inal  des, 

231. 
Utrecht,  Union  of,  135,  197. 

Vair,  Guillaume  du,  139. 
Valladolid,  172. 
Van  Asselen,  58. 
Vandeul,  13,  46. 
Vatican,  9. 


Venice,  93. 

Venice,  Doge's  Palace,  74,  77. 

Venice,  Gallery  at,  10,  38,  75. 

Venturi,  Dr.,  30. 

Vercelli,  111. 

Verona,  83,  105. 

Verona,    Church   of   San  Zeno 

at,  11. 
Versailles,  Chateau  de,  6-7,  9, 

12,  37,  68,  67,  77,  156,  252, 

282. 
Vicenza,  109. 

Vicq,  Baron  Henri  de,  144. 
Victoria  and   Albert   Museum, 

161,  304. 
Vienna,    123,    184,    194-195, 

232,  238,  272. 
Vienna  Academy,  141. 
Villa  Lemmi  frescoes,  40. 
Villa  Magliana,  60. 
Villa  Pelucca,  97. 
Villeneuve  near  Avignon,  Char- 
treuse of,  233. 
Visconti  Arese,  Antonio  Litta, 

95. 

Wallace  Collection,  267. 

Warham,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, William,  165. 

Weale,  Mr.  W.  H.  James,  126, 
129. 

Westminster,  Marquis  of,  145. 

Whitehall,  145. 

Wignacourt,  Alof  de,  120. 

Wilczek  Count,  232. 

William  ii.  of  Holland,  128. 

Windsor  Castle,  63,  148. 

Windsor,  Royal  Library,  38. 

Wittenberg,  162-163. 

Wood,  Hon.  Edward,  160. 

Woverius,  140. 


Printed  by  Morrisok  &  Gibb  Limited,  Edinburgh 


*s'L 


,-^% 


1 

1 

1 

1 

■ 

1 

i 

«' 


'\'Tu 


'rV>^ 


4   Ml 


mrM4 


w^mmm^^'mm 


■■^'iBHi 


U  DAY  USE 

I  RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


lawi^ 


m  si  w^"  *>  t^\ 


^ 


.^^^ 


.^^ 


mifW-l 


^96^ 


m 


REC'D  LP 


M. 


tfl^RlQ^^TZlS 


REC'DLD    MAR 


lQ72-4Pitf04. 


ivr 


-  d  19R7 


»iU  wfj»tii 


WW 


1APJ<-^ 


A387 


ftPRGSl999 


LD21A-60m-2.'67 
(H24l8l0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  Californin 

Berkeley 


YL  05876 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 

i 


BQD3D5mm 


m^m* 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRiteY 


